STRATEGIC INTEGRATION OF WORKPLACE DESIGN FOR ENTREPRENEURS AND INTRAPRENEURS

Joshua Hall Kelley

A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration

Cameron School of Business

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2008

Approved by

Advisory Committee

L. Vince Howe Coordinator

Accepted by

_____________________________ Dean, Graduate School

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................iii

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................ iv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 3

Functions of Office Design .................................................................................................................. 3

The Concept of Workplace Performance and Its Value to Managers..................................................... 9

Technological Innovations in the Work Environment ......................................................................... 16

Workplace Design in Practice ............................................................................................................ 18

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS & FINDINGS............................................................................................. 24

Figure 3. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design (WD)............................................................. 26

Purpose of the Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design Model .................................................... 27

Testing the Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design Model ......................................................... 29

Figure 5. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design @ SEI ........................................................... 41

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 44

iii

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to explore the effects of workplace design on employees,

organizational culture, and the work environment. A Meta­analysis of academic literature on

workplace design was conducted and revealed three functional roles of workplace design that

affect business operations. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that workplace design can

influence productivity levels on individual, team, and organizational levels.

These findings led to the creation of a generic business model that can be used as a

starting point to evaluate the potential role of strategic workplace design strategies in a company.

The “Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design” model’s usage is validated by cross

verification with a case study that examines the Software Engineering Institute’s successful

design strategies. Based on current research, the “Pillar” model will work as a generic model

and starting point for companies looking to enhance the business by investing in workplace

design. The model acts as a guide for businesses to develop a design strategy that reflects and

clarifies the culture of the company, but also embody all of the overarching values that drive the

fir in order to increase market competitiveness and business sustainability.

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. A Framework of Leveraged Office Design ................................................................. 7

2. Ranges of Environmental Comfort ........................................................................... 13

3. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design (WD)................................................... 26

4. Workplace Design and Art Are Drivers of Growth and Innovation ........................... 31

5. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design @ SEI ................................................. 41

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

As today’s business environment changes, so does how, when, and where workers

perform their daily tasks. The advent of mobile technology and electronic communication has,

in part, led to a new corporate focus on strategically designing workspaces that maximize both

individual and company output.

A framework of the effects office design has on business operations reveals three

functions: instrumental functions (improving performance and satisfaction), symbolic functions

(creating identities and cultures), and aesthetic functions (invoking sensory responses and place

attachment). The environmental conditions molded by office design have effects on three levels

of productivity: individual task performance, collaborative teamwork, and organizational

effectiveness. Further, recent innovations in workplace design have created new office design

concepts, such as the “hoteling” office, the office as a club, the virtual office, the home office,

and the paperless office. In addition, Ernst & Young (US tax company) and Vodafone (New

Zealand based international mobile network company) have effectively integrated their corporate

missions with design concepts and created fun work environments that foster productivity and

efficiency.

Based on a Meta­analysis of research studies, four research questions evolve: What role

does office design play in the daily business operations of a company? How does the workplace

affect performance and productivity of employees? What are some recent innovations in the

working environment? How has workplace design been applied in a “real world” setting? In

answering these questions the need for a systematic approach to design considerations was

developed.

2

The main purpose of the study is to therefore develop and support the creation of a

business model that provides a method for new and existing businesses to evaluate the

integration of workplace design into their business.

3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Functions of Office Design

A corporate focus on office design has increased the amount of academic research

conducted among fields such as sociology, environmental psychology, organizational identity,

and organizational symbolism (Elsbach, 2007, p. 82). Research among these fields has revealed

that outside of practical function, office design, also affects every part of a firm’s operations. In

the sociology field, studies show that office design can signal status and group membership,

improve collaboration and problem solving between groups, and affect people’s attachment to

their workplaces (Elsbach 2007, p. 82). In the other three aforementioned fields, research has

provided evidence that office design influences individual identities, creativity, and mood, in

addition to traditionally researched variables such as comfort, safety, and ergonomics (Elsbach,

2007, p. 82).

The many effects of office design on business operations have led researchers to develop

a framework that encompasses the business functions of office design. Anat Rafaeli and Iris

Vilnai­Yavetz’s framework portrays the role of office design in three functions: instrumental

functions, symbolic functions, and aesthetic functions (Vilnai­Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2006).

First, instrumental functions can be defined as any function resulting in improvements in

the performance and satisfaction of office workers. Traditional research in instrumental

functions focused on efforts to improve efficiency and output, whereas more current research has

been focused on the effects of office design on information transfer and transmission among

knowledge workers and groups (Vischer, 2007, p. 83). Office design positively affects the

decision making process while encouraging collaboration.

4

Important decision making processes require that all necessary resources are easily

accessible. According to “evidence­based management” theory (Elsbach, 2003), managers

make better decisions when they use “hard” data and archives during the decision making

process. This is to say that strategic office design can deter managers from seeking personal, less

reliable sources by making all resources readily available. Also, office design affects

collaboration by managing boundaries and providing sufficient space and objects that facilitate

social interaction among co­workers. Boundary objects are located between groups with

divergent viewpoints and are used to pool heterogeneous information and help solve

organizational problems (Elsbach, 2007, p. 93). The creation of a location, in an office, that acts

as a hub for workers can help foster informal communication and develop strong ties, resulting in

increased collaboration.

Second, symbolic functions (identities and cultures) are perceived, in variance, by

employees according to office layout and décor. A company can affirm an employee’s

individual distinctiveness by allowing them to decorate their office with personal mementos or

they can affirm the status of a group by using task­relevant décor.

Personal décor allows an employee to develop their workplace identity. Workplace

identities help employees control their self­esteem and provide meaning to their work, resulting

in increased performance. Office designs encouraging décor that fosters individual

distinctiveness are more attractive to employees than those that constrain or disallow it.

“One of the most interesting findings of recent organizational research is that,

contrary to conventional wisdom, office décor and personalization are more

important to signaling an occupant’s personal distinctiveness (i.e., how a person is

5

qualitatively different from others) than his or her personal status (i.e., how a

person is quantitatively ranked in comparison to others). That is, despite the fact

that we commonly hear stories about the importance of the corner office with the

fancy furnishings as a symbol of individual status, it appears that the office may

be more important to its occupant as a symbol of individual distinctiveness

(Elsbach, 2007, p. 86).”

Group status within a company is important because it reflects the degree that an

organization values hierarchy or egalitarianism. Office design, décor and objects can be

considered as the visible part of an organization’s culture. Organizations looking to maintain

social order and equality among groups discourage obvious status indicators, such as fancy

executive lunchrooms or offices. Designing offices and providing access to objects and places

affects perceptions of group status, thus companies should direct office construction efforts

toward their desired corporate levels of status.

Third, aesthetic functions are best defined, by Vilnai Yavetz and Rafaeli, as the “sensory

experience of an artifact,” such as a sense of coherence or a sense of confusion experienced

when viewing a subway map (Vilnai­Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2006). Aesthetic functions are

essentially the responses of users or observers to elements of office design. Aesthetic functions

promote a customized sensory experience and place attachment.

Office design elements can be used to create customized sensory experiences that can

excite or calm a worker based on the elements visual aspects. “Exciting” surroundings are

typically vivid in color and highly detailed, whereas “calming” surroundings parallel elements of

the environment with high degrees of order and naturalness. Today’s ability to alter workspaces

6

(through portable and adaptable work boundaries and screens) allows employees to change their

work environment almost instantaneously. “Researchers have recently found that viewing a

scene statically (while not moving) led to higher general preference ratings than did viewing the

scene dynamically (while moving), and that dynamic viewing meanwhile led to higher ratings of

potential learning (perceptions that they would learn more by exploring the scene in depth) than

did static viewing (Elsbach, 2007, p. 89).” This is to say that companies should consider

modifying their design elements according to the position employees will be viewing them.

Place attachment is the notion that people become attached to their workplace because

individuals develop emotional bonds by interacting with objects that typify their workplace.

Changes in office design have an impact on work because changes affect the atmosphere of the

work environment. Sociologists explain the development of place attachment as the “emotional

bonding to a site that decreases the potential substitutability of other sites for the one in question

(Milligan, 1998, p. 6).” Organizations can promote employee satisfaction by leveraging

aesthetic elements while cultivating place attachment by generating emotional bonds to their

workspace.

The framework depicted below offers a way for companies to evaluate office design

features and their value­adding potential. Applying the framework to design features reveals

potential instrumental, symbolic, and aesthetic function benefits. Design features offering

benefits across all three functions are the most desirable and offer more potential benefits than

features with benefits in one or two functions. Figure 1 provides the definition of each function

as well as examples of each.

7

Figure 1. A Framework of Leveraged Office Design

Source: Elsbach, K. D., & Bechky, D. A. (2007). It's more than a desk: working smarter through leveraged office design. California Management Review. 49/2, p. 91

Implementing leveraged office design also presents certain pitfalls, such as neglecting the

interaction of office design and office task, multiple functions for one design or object, and

unintended use of design and décor. Employees’ perceived effects of office designs often differ

from the real effects on office tasks. It must be understood that the effects of office design vary

based on the specific tasks performed, which increases the need for managers to use flexible

design techniques to accommodate various tasks.

8

Certain office design measures have the ability to affect multiple functions, thus

managers must analyze multiple functionality to see if benefits in one function are causing

damage in other functions. For example, plants in the workplace can offer symbolic and

aesthetic appeal, but they do not always benefit the instrumental performance function. The use

of plants in the design process may not be conducive to increasing performance, thus managers

may choose to avoid this tactic.

The effects of design and décor cannot always be anticipated and sometimes result in

unintended uses. For example, the layout changes associated with adding an in­office café

affects the work environment, but can also affect group dynamics and the overall organizational

culture. This makes it imperative for managers to consider all possible influences and outcomes

when choosing design strategies.

9

The Concept of Workplace Performance and Its Value to Managers

The workplace performance concept defines a workplace whose sole objective is to

optimize worker productivity. In an effort to reduce the blurred understanding of how

environmental conditions affect productivity, it is useful to define worker productivity in terms

of environmental design­relevant categories. These three categories are individual, group and

organizational productivity, in which each category implies a variation in scale of environmental

influence (Vischer, 2007).

Individual Productivity

Individual task performance (ITP), the speed and accuracy of an employee’s completed

task, is evaluated at the individual workspace level and considers micro­environmental

influences. At the individual level, performance is affected by environmental conditions such as

lighting and visual conditions, variations in temperature and humidity, furniture ergonomics, and

acoustics. Managing these environmental conditions can result in positive productivity or

negative productivity. Positive productivity is increasing the speed and accuracy of completion,

while negative productivity results in slower completion times, high error rates or bad health

effects on workers.

ITP is the most often measured form of productivity and is evaluated using ergonomic

analyses and questionnaire surveys. These surveys ask respondents to focus on the effects of

ambient conditions like noise levels, furniture comfort, temperature and indoor air quality.

10

Effects of the Work Environment on Individual Productivity

BOSTI­Westinghouse conducted a study that used employee self­reports of productivity

to determine the relationship between productivity and office design. The study quantified

workers’ value to the organization by using gross salary figures, which gave BOSTI­

Westinghouse the ability to assess organizational effectiveness as well. The study was

conducted mainly in workplaces with open office design and concluded that “better” (private

offices instead of open offices) workspaces resulted in higher levels of task completion and a

higher return on investments (Brill et al, 2001). In terms of individual productivity at the

collaborative teamwork level, studies found that changing the furniture and layout produced

increases in process speed and results (Springer, 1986). The studies surveyed different

organizations that were conducting similar paper processing tasks.

Organizational Ecology, as defined by Fritz Steele, is an analysis of a company’s

structure and function, which includes workspace. Because workspace was identified as a key

factor in organizational function, Steele collaborated with Franklin Becker to develop the

“workscape” idea and how it affected the planning and design of the work environment. As a

result, occupant satisfaction has become one of the major metrics used in assessing workspace

features (Vischer, 2007, p. 66).

Ergonomically oriented research studies the effects that environmental conditions

(lighting and “daylighting,” noise control, and furniture placement and comfort) have on

productivity. “Daylighting” research has linked increased comfort and self­reported productivity

with window size and proximity, as well as with view out, control over blinds, and shielding

from glare (Vischer, 2007, p. 66). Workers in open plan workspaces tend to judge noise to be a

primary source of discomfort and reduced productivity. Multiple studies reveal that office

11

workers feel uncomfortable in open office configurations and prefer to work in private enclosed

workspaces. In addition, aspects of psychological comfort such as territoriality and privacy are

strongly affected by spatial layout: office size and location is linked with sense of status;

partitioning influences acoustic as well as visual privacy; amount of work­related storage affects

sense of territory and status (Vischer, 2007, p. 67).

Workgroup Productivity

Collaborative team­work (CTW) takes place on the scale of the mid­range environment

and is evaluated based on the quantity and quality of group processes. CTW productivity is

measured in tangible terms (such as time to market of a new product) or in terms of more

qualitative outcomes (such as number of useful new ideas or successful recommendations)

(Vischer, 2007, p. 63). Group functions are affected by workgroup size, the proximity of team

members, the positioning of work areas and varying degrees of access to tools and equipment.

CTW is facilitated or retarded based on how the mentioned factors affect a group’s ability to

communicate and share ideas.

CTW studies are based more on personal observations, case study reports, and random

investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Indirect measures such as social

network analysis or comparing similar groups in differing environments have also provided

value­adding results.

Organization Productivity

The company or organizations productivity is viewed in terms of the entire workspace or

accommodation – the macro­environment (Vischer, 1996, Chapter 1). Considering this level of

12

productivity as organizational effectiveness (OE), it becomes possible to determine the extent to

which workspace strengthens competitive advantage or influences the achievement of business

objectives. OE is affected by locational advantages and ease of access, balancing consolidation

under one roof (centralization) with dispersion of different groups in different facilities over

manageable distances, and by building amenities such as fast elevators, convenient restrooms,

adequate parking, and attractive eating areas (Vischer, 2007, p. 64).

Effects of the Work Environment on Group and Organizational Productivity

The “environmental comfort” approach recognizes that people need to feel more than just

healthy and safe at the workplace. There is a need for functional comfort, which is

environmental support for their particular role in the company. Comfort provides managers and

employees a link between worker satisfaction and task completion, as well as organizational

productivity. All levels of management must understand environmental comfort in order to

actualize full benefits associated with investments in the workspace. J.C. Vischer, author of

Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work, breaks down environmental comfort

into a pyramid with three comfort types: physical comfort, functional comfort, and psychological

comfort. The pyramid comfort model was built around the hierarchical model of human needs

first proposed by Abraham Maslow.

The base of the pyramid is formed by the physical comfort level, which includes basic

human needs such as safety, hygiene and accessibility. These needs are necessary to develop an

environment that is habitable and the needs are often outlined in existing building codes and

standards. Traversing the pyramid vertically leads to the next level of comfort, the functional

comfort level. This level contains the elements necessary to facilitate user’s activities and

13

performance tasks, such as appropriate lighting, ergonomic furniture and works areas that

facilitate collaboration. The peak of the pyramid is psychological comfort, which is difficult to

measure but instrumental in workspace satisfaction. Psychological comfort is defined as the

feelings of belonging, ownership, and control over one’s workplace. Organizational

effectiveness can be maximized by ensuring that all environmental support is provided at all

three levels (Vischer, 1996, Chapter 1).

Figure 2. Ranges of Environmental Comfort, from Basic Habitability to Optimal Well­Being

Source: J.C.Vischer, Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance (Oxford, U.K.: Routledge/Taylor &

Francis, 2005).

The “environmental comfort” approach can also act as a management tool in the

workplace improvement decision making process. The base level of the triangle presents a

“habitability threshold” where physical comfort is just above the threshold and discomfort is

14

below. Building habitability at the basic level is referred to as “building convenience” and

implies that negative factors, such as unsafe or health­threatening conditions must be avoided.

Physical comfort problems translate into negative effects on overall assessment of the work

environment.

The second level, functional comfort, creates a need for managers to focus on investing in

workspace design and management that adds value to work being performed. In terms of the

stress/arousal and motivational models, “studies have shown that inappropriate lighting,

ventilation, and noise levels are environmental stressors that have negative effects on worker

morale and productivity, as well as health (Vischer, 2007, p. 70).” Organizational effectiveness

is negatively affected through poor employee health by means of employee lateness,

absenteeism, increased health insurance premiums, and “burnouts” resulting in increased

employee turnover. This is to say that functional comfort reduces organizational effectiveness

by negatively affecting individual task performance and collaborative teamwork.

The top of the pyramid contains a new, less­studied concept of psychological comfort. It

is the link between psychosocial aspects and workplace design through territoriality, privacy and

control. The primary component of psychological comfort is sense of territory, both individual

territory (office, workstation, micro­workspace) and group territory (team, group, midrange

workspace), affecting both employee stress levels and motivation (Vischer, 2007, p. 71). The

need for privacy seems to be only indirectly related to workspace design and to be dependent

more on psychological factors, such as concerns about status and control (Vischer, 2007, p. 71).

Experimental efforts to increase users’ environmental control provide evidence of the beneficial

effects on workers, including one experimental design that found a clear association between

15

participation in decision making and degree of workplace satisfaction following a move to a new

facility (Vischer, 2007, p. 71).

“The key to designing a performing workspace is ongoing and reliable feedback from

users on their levels of physical, functional, and psychological comfort, and applying this

feedback systematically to workspace planning and design (Vischer, 2007, p. 72).”

16

Technological Innovations in the Work Environment

There is a growing need for businesses to embrace technological advances by adapting

their work environments through restructuring of the organization and office space. Many

companies encourage workforce mobility to cultivate communication of knowledge, which

implies that the “traditional office” is beginning to phase out as global communications

technology use becomes more widespread and affordable. Workplaces today and in the future

need to offer flexibility of both space and personnel, breaking away from hierarchical patterns of

the past (Anjum et al, 2005, p. 74). Hoteling, the office as a club, the virtual office, the home

office, and the paperless office are five major design concepts that have developed to meet new

and future workplace flexibility needs.

Office space costs are rising and increasing the need for companies to concentrate on

maximizing cost efficiency by eliminating under­utilized workplaces. The increasing need for

efficiency and cost reduction created the idea of hoteling, which can also be referred to as “hot­

desking” or “desk­sharing.” This concept gets the name “hoteling” because employees call

ahead to reserve workspaces at specific times, much like booking a room at a hotel. A study

undertaken by DEGW, a leading architectural firm specializing in offices in the UK, has revealed

that on average workers are at the office for less than 60% of their time and of that time less than

50% is actually spent at their workstation (Anjum et al, 2005, p. 75). Companies who recognize

a similar situation in their firm can maximize efficiency by utilizing workspaces not in use. This

can be analogous to the need for airline companies to fill their planes before a flight because an

empty seat produces no value.

17

Designing an office to resemble a “club” setting offers companies the ability to promote

knowledge work by providing a casual and informal environment. This concept promotes

intellectual activity by simultaneously providing private spaces for individual work, community

areas for collaborative work, and relaxation areas for reflective and creative thinking. Another

term which has evolved is that of “touchdown” spaces describing places where workers can work

for a very short period of time (Anjum et al, 2005, p. 76). The mobility associated with today’s

technologies make “touchdown” spaces very convenient for workers who find themselves

constantly on the go.

Organizations have the advantage, provided it matches their work structure, to offer

employees the option to work from virtual offices. The prevalence and quality of mobile

technology allows today’s workforce to be “nomadic” and work from many locations such as

home, a car, a train or a coffee shop. The idea of virtual offices has led to the development of

communication consoles that workers can wear on their arm, as well as backpacks that transform

into modular workspaces. As technology continues to advance, so will methods enabling

employees to work, productively, from anywhere.

The domestic (home) office concept benefits employers by increasing employee

productivity because it gives their employees the freedom to balance work and home

commitments. Also, cell phones, e­mail and video conferencing can be used to keep employees

in touch with their colleagues despite the distance gap. Working from home, or

“telecommuting” has been popular since the late 1990s and will become increasingly more

popular, as technology aiding distance collaboration becomes more sophisticated.

18

Workplace Design in Practice Vodafone

Vodafone, a mobile network operator located in Auckland, New Zealand, sought the

advice of Dean Croucher during the process of designing Vodafone’s new corporate

headquarters. Croucher, the managing director of working environment and property strategy

company Dow Group, said, “the trick lies in balancing how an organization wants its people to

work and how it wants them to change versus what individuals' personal requirements maybe

(Le Pla, 2005, p. 52).”

David Sullivan, finance director at Vodafone, received the support of top level

management to design a new corporate headquarters that reflected the desires of three key

elements – the combined needs of staff, the company’s brand promise, and customers’

expectations. To reach the desired outcome of a state­of­the­art office building, Vodafone had to

change its organizational behavior, furniture, and technology simultaneously. It was easy to

change the furniture and technology; however, in order to restructure organizational behavior

Vodafone developed an employee classification system that divided the workforce into four

categories – homers, foners, roamers, and zoners.

Homers are allocated their own desk and personal computer because they are the

employees that conduct their daily work at a desk. Next, foners are contact center (call center)

employees that are allowed the freedom to choose where they want to work within the contact

center area. Further, roamers spend 90 % of their time away from the company’s home base.

These employees are provided laptop computers with wireless access because they have no

allocated desk space. They are encouraged to use “touchdown” points throughout the office

when they are in the office and need a workspace. Finally, the zoners are employees who spend

19

two­thirds of their work day shuffling between meetings. Zoners make use of numerous, un­

allocated desks in various different “collaboration” or “backyard” areas (Le Pla, 2005, p. 52­54).

Vodafone considered all of the varying performance tasks and performance needs of their

employees when designing their new headquarters. Winston Churchill said, “We shape our

buildings. Thereafter they shape us.” The new corporate headquarter office building was

successfully designed to convey corporate missions and goals, while shaping and fostering

change in the workforce. Vodafone can foster employee satisfaction and maintain a goal­

oriented workforce through continual work environment evaluation and modification based on

changing business needs (Le Pla, 2005, p. 55).

Ernst & Young Shared Services

The typical tax accounting office resembles the “traditional” office model and is

characterized by a sea of cubicles on every level of the building. Ernst & Young Shared

Services, in Indianapolis, IA, wanted to reduce employee turnover ­ a problem that plagues many

accounting firms because tax work is demanding and requires long work shifts during tax season.

Ernst & Young wanted to design an office concept that maintained efficiency and encouraged

employees through recreation, relaxation, and fun. The design team, GHK, surveyed employees

to find out what was most important to them in a workplace. Other companies with low

employee turnover rates used a corporate culture designed to nurture their employees, thus Ernst

& Young took the survey results and integrated them into their corporate mission and design

concept. The design concept was based around three key elements employees defined as

important – individual work areas, common areas, and amenities (Babcock, 2003, p. 48).

20

Much of the work done within Ernst & Young was individual, quiet work that required

privacy and concentration. The design team used high partition walls to separate the modern­

looking cubicles to provide privacy. In terms of concentration, employee cubicles were designed

to provide ample space and outfitted with quality pendant lighting systems that help keep

workers focused.

GHK used design features in common areas to create a fun environment for workers

throughout the day. One conference room had a giant heart above the conference table while a

42­foot paper airplane made out of a mock 1040 tax form hung over three other rooms. These

design features offered a feeling of relief for workers during their busy day. Further, the office

housed a training facility, and interactive media room/lunchroom, a patio with picnic tables, a

relaxation room, a putting green, and a game room with ping pong and foosball tables. The

relaxation room and the lunchroom were critical because employees voiced their desire to have a

quiet place to read a book and a fun place to enjoy a meal.

The office site location offered many different amenities for employees such as a close

proximity to childcare services and long hallways lined with windows that embrace natural

lighting. Also, the building was located near a photographic pond with a nature walk. Ernst &

Young encouraged employees to use their downtime to exercise and connect with nature; they

even offered on­site access to bicycles.

According to Robert Wright, director of design and construction at Ernst & Young, the

workspace design was a tremendous success and has produced high efficiency level and happy

employees. He said, “The employees do group activities together and feel like a family. It is

amazing the culture that has developed in this group (Babcock, 2003, p. 49).” Ernst & Young

has been able to successfully duplicate their design concepts in other tax compliance offices

21

located in varying regions. This is evidence that office design can add value to a company,

provided companies’ seek input from employees and integrate that input into the corporate

mission and the design concept.

22

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

The meta analysis technique was used to answer four research questions and pull

information from secondary research together to create a generic workplace design business

model. A collection of resources were used including management journals, design journals,

weekly design publications, and engineering and real estate publications. The different

groupings of literature explored the functions of office design and how workplace performance

can create value for managers and the organization. Further, technological innovations in

workplace design and current real­world workplace design practices were evaluated.

The meta analysis results were then translated into the “Three Pillars of Strategic

Workplace Design” model that grouped the findings into three categories: the organization, the

workforce, and the design team. The model was structured to show the role the categories play

in office design both individually and collectively. In order to test the model’s viability, a cross­

examination of the model based on a decade long success story of workplace design at the

Software Engineering Institute was conducted. The cross­examination was used to reveal

similarities or differences in the approach to workplace design, considerations in workplace

design, and workplace design procedures between the model and real life practice.

For the purposes of this paper, the term entrepreneurship refers to starting a new business

or “greenfield operations.” In a “greenfield operation” an entirely new business entity is created

from the ground up and requires an investment in the land and infrastructure that will be required

to support the new business.

The term intrapreneurship is used in reference to driving change in an existing business

much like “brownfield operations.” “Brownfield operations” are characterized by taking existing

23

land an infrastructure and completely restructuring it to be more competitive in the current

business environment or compete in a new business environment.

24

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS & FINDINGS

A major factor in the success of office design is the extent to which the company

integrates their design concept into their corporate missions and visions, thus changing the

corporate culture. One method to sustain a corporate culture is by embedding it in the design

process. By giving careful thought to the workforce, the company’s culture and designing an

environment to support it, organizations can strengthen their culture and values and link them

more directly to the operations of the company. Linking design strategies to operations involves

choosing design concepts that benefit corporate performance metrics, such as productivity, return

on investments or sales turnover. Every company is driven by different performance metrics,

thus there is no generic “best­fit” design strategy for all companies. Companies can also design

their workspaces for more effective responses to changes in the business environment that are

inevitable. Overall, workplace design can help develop a sustainable competitive advantage for

firms that are willing and able to integrate design concepts across all levels of the organization.

Workplace design is an accessible, yet complex concept for companies in today’s

business environment. Companies must understand the culture they are trying to create and how

employees currently feel and act within their working environment. In the beginning phase of

office design, involving the workforce allows companies to make strategic designs as to which

design features should be used to add value. The “environment comfort” model helps companies

assess users’ relations to environmental conditions and how these relations are influenced by

different buildings, task types and corporate cultures. Employees need spaces for interaction and

brainstorming as well as places for concentration and reflection. Areas designed for socialization

can encourage informal communication which is often an excellent motivator for information

sharing and creating innovative ideas. If a company fails to include the needs reflected by the

25

workforce they will not be able to design a workplace that adds value by increasing happiness

and productivity.

These findings led to the creation of a generic business model that can be used as a

starting point to evaluate the potential role of strategic workplace design strategies in a company.

26

Figure 3. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design (WD)

Source: Josh Kelley

Organization – “Foundation” Pillar § WD must be organizationally embedded for maximum effectiveness

Mgmt. Support: Financial ­ investment return benefits Cultural – “reinforcement” of new/modified culture

Integrated Concept: Aligning design concept with corporate identity (mission, vision), organizational culture, performance metrics

Workforce – “Knowledge” Pillar § The workforce is the source of knowledge for working environment insight, which shapes WD

Involvement: Workforce input must be consider from conception, reveals positive/negative factors affecting the work environment, employee satisfaction, and employee productivity; classifying workforce by task completion processes

Assessment Metrics: Using workforce input to develop evaluative measures to analyze pre­,post­, and future design concept effects; tools to ensure on­going success via improvements in the design model

Design Team –“Action” Pillar § Selection of the “best­fit” design firm/team is critical to develop a business enhancing design concept.

Information: Design firms are the paramount source for information regarding successful, industry­specific design concepts; vast knowledge of design features and success rates

Implementation: Experience; transitional “know­how”­ using design features to change the work environment

27

Purpose of the Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design Model

The “Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design” model was designed to provide

entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs with a tool that can be used to holistically evaluate workplace

design’s role in a startup or existing business, respectively. The foundation, knowledge and

action pillars make up the backbone that supports the value­adding integration of office design

concepts into businesses operating in today’s perpetually changing business realm.

The “Pillar Model” is a tool that can help one understand the culture that must be

supported by top management and established within the organization to achieve operational

efficiency and sustain growth in the work environment. This understanding is critical for

entrepreneurs because no culture or work environment has been established in the startup

business. Understanding what culture drives the company in its field of business is invaluable

because these values, norms and practices can be instilled in the workforce and work

environment from day one. In an existing business, it is a daunting task to change an established

culture because if it is not done subtlety and strategically it can have negative effects on the

workforce, interactions in the work environment and overall operational efficiency. The “Pillar

Model” helps develop an understanding of the existing organizational culture and whether or not

workplace design can be used to change the work environment to help recharge the culture,

modify the culture or create an entirely new culture.

Furthermore, understanding the culture of the company is only “half of the battle.” An

organizational culture is inextricably intertwined with the workforce because it guides

motivation and absorbs retaliation. It is critical to know how the business’s culture facilitates or

retards workers productivity, collaboration, satisfaction and well­being. For the entrepreneur,

28

the “Pillar Model” will help classify the job completion processes that are most critical to the

success of the company. In other words, it reveals if the company will be driven mainly by

individual productivity or collaborative teamwork or some combination of the two.

Intrapreneurs can use the model with existing or historical data to typify the job completion

processes of the workforce within their business. This may sound simple, but very few

companies understand the characteristics of the different types of workers that execute daily

business operations. Workplace design cannot and will not be effective without an in­depth

understanding of the entire workforce, so that all physical, functional and psychological needs

are consistently satisfied.

Neither entrepreneurs nor intrapreneurs have the information or implementation skills

necessary to integrate office design concepts. In order to strategically integrate design concepts

expertise from outside the organization must be consulted. Matching the design firm and

company on multiple dimensions is an important beginning. This is to say that the consulting

firm must fully understand the company’s organizational culture and workforce as thoroughly as

the company itself. In addition, the company must choose a consulting firm that has the

experience and unique skill set that will accommodate the company’s industry specific and firm

specific needs. Consultants working with entrepreneurs will be able to take a “clean slate”

approach and have all office design concepts at their disposal; whereas, intrapreneurial office

design requires working around existing physical structures, established organizational cultures,

and a seasoned workforce. Both scenarios create advantages and disadvantages to each party in

the design process. The critical aspect of the action pillar is establishing and nurturing a trusting

relationship between client and consultant so that mutual benefits can be actualized.

29

Testing the Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design Model

The Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design (“Pillar”) model’s usage is validated by

cross verification with a case study utilizing successful design processes. SEI Investments

Developments, Inc. has experienced a decade of operational success attributed strongly to

workplace design changes and the resulting strengthening of corporate culture. The case study

was co­authored by Alfred P. West, Jr. and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. Mr. West is the founder,

Chairman and CEO of SEI and Mr. Wind is the Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing

and Director of the SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management at The Wharton School.

The cross validation illustrates the practical and effective use of the “Pillar” model for both

entrepreneurial startups and intrapreneurial changes in existing businesses.

Workplace Design at SEI

SEI began, in 1968, as a small startup firm and has grown into a leading provider of

investment accounting and administrative services. Today, they currently operate in 12 countries

with a total of 22 offices. SEI processes over $50 trillion of investment transactions annually,

manages over $160 billion in investments, and administers $350 billion in mutual fund and

pooled assets (West, 2007, p. 139).

SEI created a new work environment by using design concepts and artwork that pushed

egalitarianism, empowerment, transparency, flexibility, teamwork, and interaction. In 1996,

these design concepts were implemented fully when the company moved their corporate

headquarters to a 125 acre campus in Oaks, Pennsylvania. Since the move, financial

performance improved, realizing earnings growth of 40 percent per year from 1996 to 2001, with

no increase in workforce. Furthermore, annual return since the move was 28 percent and the

30

company managed to post strong performance during the downturn in the investment industry

since 2001 (West, 2007, p. 150­151).

The innovative approach to and success of workplace design at SEI presents a legitimate

example of how a work environment can reflect and support a company’s culture by providing

flexibility in adapting to changing environments and business strategies. SEI’s story proves that

new approaches to workplace design, differing from the typical design strategies used by most

companies, can provide benefits to the organization on many levels.

Foundation Pillar Aspects

Office design ideas that are not fully supported by top management or integrated with the

corporate mission and vision will remain as ideas and never make it from the planning phase to

the implementation phase.

The first part of the foundation pillar, management support, is divided into a financial

aspect and a cultural aspect. Financially, the design ideas themselves must be fiscally

responsible and provide the company investment return benefits to gain full commitment from

top management. Fiscal responsibility is necessary for intrapreneurs to get top management

committed to design ideas, while fiscal responsibility is imperative for entrepreneurs because of

limited startup capital. The notion of fiscal responsibility in workplace design is supported by the

following excerpt from the SEI case study.

“Organizations need to avoid the “edifice complex” seen in many companies that waste a

lot of money creating expensive showcases. In designing its buildings, SEI has always

sought to be innovative and fiscally responsible. The whole project was value

engineered, using industrial materials rather than commercial ones. All the floors are

31

covered with tiles made of recycled tires. This facilitates rolling offices and dampens

sounds in open spaces, but also reduces costs as well as being ecologically sound. The

building façade is made of concrete because an earlier plan to employ fieldstone in the

Pennsylvania “barn” architecture was revised to reduce costs (West, 2007, p. 150).”

In addition, design ideas at SEI provided benefits that led to growth, achievement of

corporate objectives, and continuous innovation. The figure below shows the investment return

benefits that SEI experienced and also reveals benefits that other companies can actualize if they

successfully adopt and implement smart design concepts.

Figure 4. Workplace Design and Art Are Drivers of Growth and Innovation

Source: West, A. and Wind, Y. (2007). Putting the Organization on Wheels: Workplace Design at SEI. California Management Review. 49/2. p. 152

32

Top management support ultimately determines, influences, and reinforces the

company’s identity. At SEI, creating the new work environment was a top­down process.

Radical changes to organizations are often very difficult and cannot be passed on to a project

team because democratic approaches to large change processes often lead to inaction. Many

people at SEI who could not shift with the organizational change left the company, but those

who stayed were engaged advocates, aligned with organizational values, through the transition

process. Workplace design facilitated the transition by helping make the culture concrete (West,

2007, p. 148).

“Although driven from the top, the company’s executive committee played a central role

in implementing the changes. The CEO took the new model and the underlying

principles to this committee – along with the cultural principles it was based upon – and

this team of more than a dozen senior managers played a critical role in adopting the

changes and carrying them out to the organization. The organization also paid careful

attention to the transition process. The transfer to the new workplace was done in stages

with CEO Al West moving in the first phase. This allowed the rest of the organization to

see what was happening before it moved. It also made it clear that this new workplace

would apply to everyone. This transition process also helped create interest in and

excitement about the new workplace (West, 2007, p. 148­149).”

Thus the support of top management in the creation, implementation, and transition

stages of modifying or creating a new work environment is essential.

The second part of the foundation pillar is creating integrated design concepts. The

“Pillar” model’s focus on integrating design concepts with culture is important to entrepreneurs

33

because it shows the importance of taking the time to think about the best culture that will

motivate employees and sustain growth and innovation within their business area. The

determination for the “culture of best fit” is vital to the implementation of a design concept that

nurtures a value­adding work environment. For intrapreneurs, the established culture in the

existing business will be affected by workplace design features that create a new work

environment. The current culture must first be understood before tactical decisions about

workplace design can be made.

Integration in this sense describes the idea that the design concept(s) must be aligned with

the culture and corporate identity of the company. “Cultures are norms and values that define

how people work and think about work (West, 2007, p. 139).” Workplace design concepts must

be integrated with the culture because culture is the substance that binds companies together by

motivating collective strategy and aligning individual activity. Workplace design can be used to

align the company’s culture with strategy, which creates a powerful force for creativity and

innovation. “For SEI, the creation of a flexible work environment supported their culture [of

creativity and innovation] while allowing the organization to quickly change strategic direction

to seize new opportunities or respond to new threats (West, 2007, p. 140).”

Knowledge Pillar Aspects

The knowledge pillar is the portion of the model that is used to develop an in­depth

understanding of the company’s workforce. Understanding the workforce is important because it

offers insight into the working environment of employees, which reveals the information

necessary to choose and implement design concepts that will provide the most benefit for the

34

company. Without the full commitment of the workforce any attempts at promoting or

benefiting from strategic design concepts are not possible.

The approach to using the model to understand the workforce will vary between

entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. First, entrepreneurs have the added benefit of involving

employees in the office design process from conception. Before hiring the first worker, the

entrepreneur can consider the positive and negative factors in the work environment that could

affect them in their day to day operations. Also, tools that measure employee satisfaction and

productivity could be made known to potential employees before they are hired rather than

introduced to them after they have been in the company for some amount of time. Forecasting

the task completion process for the workforce allows the entrepreneur to understand what work

environment will be most conducive to enabling the workforce. For example, if the company’s

critical operations are performed in teams an office that provides open areas, few barriers to

communication, easy relocation for team meetings and promotes a flexible, collaborative

environment would be most beneficial. This same work environment would not be very

effective in an environment in which the business relies heavily on individual productivity, such

as an accounting firm. This type of environment would need to have some common areas, but

the focus should be on providing areas where people can work on their own in a calm and quiet

environment.

Second, for intrapreneurs the knowledge pillar should trigger the need to take a step back

and determine if the company truly understands its workforce. For instance, “a 2005 survey by

Spherion Corporation of more than 1,000 U.S. workers in different organizations found that only

44 percent believed that their organizations had a widely embraced and understood corporate

culture (West, 2007, p. 139).” This survey shows that there is a strong need for companies to

35

find a way to reinforce their culture. Workplace design offers a way to embed the company’s

expectations and identity into the work environment. Unlike entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs will

have to utilize tools and methods that can be used to dig in to the workforce and develop a better

understanding of how the people function within the firm’s walls. As mentioned previously, the

tools used by the company should be targeted at revealing levels of employee satisfaction,

employee productivity, negative and positive factors affecting the work environment (such as

lighting, location, colors, etc.), and classifying the workforce by job completion process.

Finally, to receive continual benefit from workplace design concepts both entrepreneurs

and intrapreneurs must employ assessment metrics that evaluate the design concepts used. These

metrics should evaluate the design concepts on pre­adoption, post­adoption and future use levels.

The metrics established by various assessment methods can be used by the company to ensure

on­going success of workplace design by continuously improving the design model. It is not

expected for entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs to have the knowledge of which assessment tools are

best for evaluating the workforce or evaluating design concepts, but they should know where to

get access to this information. Design firms hold a wealth of knowledge about evaluating the

workforce and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of many design concepts across many

industries. In addition to obtaining employee insight through interviews and surveys, the

organization might consider direct employee involvement in the design process. By

collaborating with design experts, employees develop a sense of ownership and ultimately

commitment to both the values and culture behind the design.

At SEI, an analysis of the workforce revealed changes in the work environment that

could be made to increase efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Among these were the

removal of secretaries, the team phone concept, and a teamwork transformation. SEI found it

36

clear that secretaries were the only people in the organization with no upward mobility. The

company saw secretaries as a buffer between the manager and the business world that repressed

the free flow of ideas; a key to the company’s competitiveness and success. The change was

drastic, but SEI muffled the negative effects by offering all secretaries jobs in different roles.

In the financial services sector, it is strategically important for clients to speak with an

informed employee when they call for consultation. It is unrealistic for SEI to expect its

employees to be at their desk one hundred percent of the time, so they developed the team phone

concept. Under this concept, if an SEI team member could not answer his/her phone then the

call was passed on to the rest of the team. Whoever was available to take the call would answer

it thus enabling the customer to speak with someone knowledgeable and not a machine. An

added perk to using team phones was that it kept all team members in the loop as to what was

going on with the business.

Furthermore, in their analysis SEI discovered that their old office design was not

conducive to the shift of focus on teams. Doing work in teams was the most beneficial way for

SEI to spark creativity and execute innovation, but as workers were moved from team to team

costs increased. They estimated reconstruction costs of $1,400 per employee relocated and days

of lost productivity (West, 2007, p. 140). This realization was one of the factors that led to the

move to a new business campus with cutting edge office designs.

The design strategy at SEI created a unique competitive advantage, providing a screening

method for new employees, and developing a signaling effect for both new and existing

employees. Two top executives at SEI describe the company’s competitive advantage by saying,

“SEI’s people are uncommon, personifying both entrepreneurial initiative and cooperative

teamwork. They are flexible, eager to learn, generous with knowledge and skills, and creative,

37

yet practical. Innovation is everywhere in the company’s strategies, products, client

relationships and even the physical environment (West, 2007, p. 142).” The work environment

at SEI also acts as a screening method for potential employees because people who choose to

join the company appreciate and like the culture reflected in its office design. This helps to filter

out the potential employees who would not be a good fit for the company’s open culture. The

company’s culture is so deeply nested in the office design that it signals to new and existing

employees the high level of commitment to teamwork, creativity, empowerment and other

values.

Action Pillar Aspects

Design firms are an ideal resource that provides an unbiased view of the organization and

the workforce while providing design knowledge. Considering an internal view, employing a

design firm will help ensure that the company truly understands their workforce by providing

third person input. Frequently organizations lack the knowledge and empathy regarding

employee desires and motivators. The company should establish a relationship with the design

firm that enables continual evaluation of design concepts to continually improve the design

strategy in the future. The design firm brings the unique skill of narrowing down the plethora of

design concepts and choosing the ones that are a best­fit for the individual company based on

experience and practice. Overall, the design firm provides all the information and

implementation skills necessary to execute strategic workplace design.

The action pillar’s application differs between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, but in

terms of the necessity of a design firm being the center of strategy creation it is the same. First,

entrepreneurs are most focused on getting their business started and have the most understanding

38

of the company and the company’s budget. They don’t have the time that a design firm has to

focus on the design strategy. Entrepreneurs can provide the design firm with a description of the

ideal working environment for the workforce, and the budget allocated to the design process.

These are the critical elements that design firms need to develop a unique and value­adding

design concept that is specific to the company because there is no such thing as a generic design

strategy that works for all companies.

Intrapreneurs have the added task of taking an existing physical structure and re­shaping

it. Management may not have the resources or desire to support new workplace design ideas that

require purchasing new real estate. It is the intrapreneur’s task to compile all of the information

about the changes that the company wants to see when they adopt office design concepts and the

investment they are willing to make. This includes the desired changes in the company’s culture,

workforce, and work environment. The design firm can then take that information and custom

tailor a holistic design strategy that considers all of the company’s parameters.

SEI is a unique story of workplace design because design firms were not readily available

when they began to focus on workplace design over a decade ago. Design firms did exist, but

the current trend of office design as a motivator and business enhancing tool was not yet

mainstream. SEI, led by CEO Alfred West, was a pioneer in workplace design making choices

about design concepts based on what would improve job task completion and satisfaction of the

workforce, as well as improve organizational efficiency. Aligning design concepts with

organizational culture and corporate strategy exemplifies the knowledge, experience, and “know­

how” that today’s design firms can offer companies looking to put workplace design into action.

39

SEI chose specific design concepts that could be used to embed their organizational

culture in the workplace. They chose design concepts that reinforced egalitarianism,

empowerment, transparency, teamwork and interaction, and flexibility.

Hierarchy is not as important as ideas. To support a flat organizational structure the new

workplace was designed to have no offices. Instead, they used desks on wheels in large barn­like

rooms with high ceilings and open spaces. They installed some private conference rooms around

the open work areas, but no one received a private office. Even the CEO had the same desk and

furniture as the rest of the employees. Such design concepts send the message that seniority and

title do not matte as they do in more traditionally structured companies (West, 2007, p. 143).

The company wanted their employees to be empowered and act as owners of their work.

Each employee was allowed to change their location in the organization without approval from

top managers and doing so was easy because their desk was on wheels. Top management set the

overall strategy and vision, but employees were encouraged to reposition themselves on different

teams on their own. This mobility allowed for greater collaboration and talent sharing within the

organization (West, 2007, p. 143).

“In an office without walls, there are no secrets (West, 2007, p. 143).” Open

architecture in an office building creates an open culture where little or no private conversations

exist. Managers can passively monitor their teams by simply listening to the conversations and

interactions taking place. By listening, the manager will know when things start to get heated

and can step in to mediate before the situation gets out of control. In this environment,

employees learn to read body language, respect space and respect signals of their co­workers,

which lead to more openness and interaction, and mentoring and learning (West, 2007, p. 143).

40

Because change is constant at SEI offices were designed for flexibility and reconfiguring

work teams as needed with minimal cost. Each year the company has a “clean up day” where

each business unit competes to see who can throw away the most non­critical material. This

event ensures and reinforces that the workforce is always ready to move. The definition of

flexibility is embodied in the employees’ ability to form a new team by simply rolling their desks

to a new location and plugging in to the readily­accessible multimedia connections (West, 2007,

p. 144).

Teamwork and interaction are consistently encouraged in SEI’s large barn­like open

rooms. In these rooms there is nothing to block interaction because everything is in the line of

sight and no objects are higher than a desk. Employees don’t gather around the water cooler to

share ideas and information because it happens everywhere. SEI chose to install a large cafeteria

for all employees, including top executives to eat and meet. The cafeteria has become a central

location for both informal and formal interactions. To encourage spontaneous meetings and

informal interactions there are small sitting locations throughout the office. Very few closed

door areas exist and the on­campus health club makes the office both engaging and fun to work

in (West, 2007, p. 144).

SEI’s design strategy can be applied across all three pillars of the “Three Pillars of

Strategic Workplace Design” model. The design strategy was driven through the organization

across all levels by CEO Alfred West. Design concepts were chosen based on input from

employees and the direction provided by a design team of committed SEI executives. The

following chart illustrates the “Pillar” model as applied to SEI, but also portrays the model’s

ability to be used as a framework for workplace design strategy decision making.

41

Figure 5. Three Pillars of Strategic Workplace Design @ SEI

Foundation Pillar – The Organization (Software Engineering Institute) § SEI’s buildings were designed to reflect a flexible and creative culture

Driven top­down: Financial ­ Investment return benefits: Continuous Innovation, (Mgmt. Support) Growth, Achievement of Corporate Objectives

Cultural ­ Transition and implementation driven from the top Culture Infused Design: Corporate identity “baked into the fabric of the work (Integrated Concept) environment”

Knowledge Pillar – The Workforce (SEI Employees) § Analyzing the workforce shaped the design strategy; removal of secretaries & team phone concept

Empowerment: Encourages teamwork & interaction; attracts and retains the right (Involvement) people; facilitates communication and transparency; encourages

creativity; signals innovation and fiscal responsibility to all stakeholders; faster, more efficient & effective decisions

Employee Surveys: Consistently recognized by Fortune magazine as one of the best (Assessment Metrics) companies to work for in America; continual feedback on success

and failure in the design strategy; “clean up day”

Action Pillar – The Design Team (Executive Committee) § Unique, innovative, pioneering approach led by CEO and an internal design team

Design Concepts: Promoting egalitarianism, empowerment, transparency, (Information) flexibility, teamwork and interaction

Design Principles: Embrace the Culture, Fiscal Responsibility, Build for Flexibility (Implementation)

42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS

Today’s business environment requires companies to embrace change and adopt

organizational cultures that enable flexibility, innovation, and creativity. Workplace design

should not only reflect and clarify the culture of the company, but should also embody all of the

overarching values that drive the firm. The design strategy itself should be a convergence of the

culture, mission, vision, objectives, and performance drivers of daily operations. The ideal

design strategy will provide increased output and efficiency, aside from reinforcing the culture

and enhancing the work environment. Shaping the work environment through workplace design

creates a more direct link between the company’s culture and the work of the organization. This

link will enable the company to shift strategic direction when market demand or performance

outcomes require a new focus.

A “best­fit” design strategy for all companies does not exist, thus strategic workplace

design strategies must be crafted with company and industry specific criterion. Examples of

design concepts portrayed in this thesis are not meant to be model design strategies, but the

examples do reveal that there are many more varied approaches available to workplaces design

than the traditional “cubicle office” thinking.

Based on current research, the “Three Pillars of Strategic Design” model will work as a

generic model and starting point for companies looking to enhance the business by investing in

workplace design; however, there are limitations to this study of workplace design. Only one

case of successful workplace design was thoroughly evaluated and applied to the model.

Strengthening the model’s viability could be achieved by applying similar cross­examinations

using both large and small firms, as well as more entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial firms. Also,

43

there was no hard (quantitative) data used in the evaluation. The findings based on anecdotal

data can be further supported by quantitative data once the model is put into practice.

The workplace design study conducted presents to two areas for future research within

functionality of the model and the model’s application internationally. Different departments

within a single company may require different design strategies to provide the desired workplace

design benefits. This is to say that very different approaches between the marketing department

and accounting department may be necessary to implement a design strategy that is holistically

value­adding. Research designed to reveal best practices in accommodating different

departments with different design concepts would add a new level of functionality to the “Pillar”

model. In addition, the effectiveness of design concepts and strategies will vary across different

national and regional cultures in the world. Design concepts that work in the United States may

not be effective in Germany or vice versa. Studying the variance in design concepts across

different cultures would add an entirely new dimension to the model and make it globally

applicable. In order for the model to be widely accepted and used, further research in

functionality and international application must be used to drive the evolution of the model.

REFERENCES

Anjum, N., Paul, J., & Ashcroft, R. (2005). The changing environment of offices: a challenge for furniture design. Design Studies. 26, 73­95.

Babcock, R. (2003, March). Tax Breaks. Buildings & Buildings Interiors, 48­49.

Becker, F. and Steele, F. Workplace by Design: Mapping the High Performance Workscape (San Francisco, CA: Jossey­Bass, 1994).

Bontis, N. Dragonetti, N.C. Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. “The Knowledge Toolbox: A Review of the Tools Available to Measure and Manage Intangible Resources,” European Management Journal, 17/4 (1999): 391­402.

Brill, M. et al., Disproving Widespread Myths About Workplace Design (Jasper, IN: Kimball International, 2001).

Elsbach, K.D. “Relating Physical Environment to Self­Categorizations: A Study of Identity Threat and Affirmation in a Non­Territorial Office Space,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48/4 (December 2003): 622­654.

Elsbach, K. D., & Bechky, D. A. (2007). It's more than a desk: working smarter through leveraged office design. California Management Review. 49/2

Evans, G.W. Environmental Stress (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1982)

Heft, H. and Nasar, J.L. “Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic Versus Static Displays,” Environment and Behavior, 32 (2000): 301­322.

Kampschroer, K. “Workplace Making: Experiment and Transformation,” lecture, Harvard Design School Executive Education Program, August 2004.

Leather, P. Pyrgas, M. Beale, D. and Lawrence, C. “Windows in the Workplace: Sunlight, View, and Occupational Stress,” Environment and Behavior, 30/6 (1998): 739­762

45

Le Pla, R. (2005, August). Building great workplaces. New Zealand Management, 50­55.

Milligan, M.J. “Interactional Past and Potential: The Social Construction of Place Attachment,”Symbolic Interaction, 21 (1998): 1­33, p. 6.

“News Briefs.” HR Focus. 82/12 (December 2005): 9.

Niemela, R. Rautio, S. Hannula, M. and Reijula, K. “Work Environment Effects on Labor Productivity: An Intervention Study in a Storage Building,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42/4 (2002): 328­335).

Schein, Edgar. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd Edition (New York, NY: Wiley Publishers/Jossey­Bass, 2004)

Springer, T. Improving Productivity In the Workplace: Reports from the Field (St. Charles, IL; Springer Associates, 1986).

Stokols, D. and Scharf, F. “Developing Standardized Tools for Measuring Employees’ Rating of Facility Performance,” in G.Davis and F.T. Ventre, eds., Performance of Building and Serviceability of Facilities (Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1990), pp. 55­68.

Vilnai­Yavetz, I. and Rafaeli, A. “Managing Artifacts to Avoid Artifact Myopia,” in A. Rafaeli and M. Pratt, eds., Artifacts and Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006), pp. 9­21.

Vischer, J.C. Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work (New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 1996)

Vischer, J.C. Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance (Oxford, U.K.: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2005).

Vischer, J. C. (2007). The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. California Management Review. 49/2.

West, A. and Wind, Y. (2007). Putting the Organization on Wheels: Workplace Design at SEI. California Management Review. 49/2.

46

Zelinsky, M. The Inspired Workspace: Designs for Creativity and Productivity (Gloucester, MA:Rockport Publishers Inc., 2002).