|
Picture a
factory where poorly maintained machines operate at only a fraction of their
intended speed, or an assembly line that forces workers to use unnecessary
steps. Few companies could afford such wastefulness.
During the past
100 years, efficiency experts have focused on wringing extra pennies from
manufacturing processes. Now we are at the dawn of an era that will be
devoted to reducing a different kind of cost: the misuse of people’s time,
talent, and potential.
How should a
facility manager’s views on productivity change to reflect this new focus on
knowledge-based work? While it’s easy to measure and improve machine-based
efficiency, how do companies know when their brainpower is functioning at
half-speed? What are the costs and causes of knowledge worker downtime?
Today, most
companies have barely begun to identify and reduce these formidable costs.
A good way to begin such a quest is by shining a light on productivity
killers that stem from flawed workplace design practices.
Killer #1.
The ratio of public to quiet space is out of balance. Some
companies confuse quantity of communication (“Let’s take down all the
partitions.”) with quality of communication (“Let’s offer people a variety
of private and interactive spaces to suit a range of activities.”) To
identify the bottom line consequences of imbalanced public/quiet space, ask
employees what percentage of their typical day is unproductive due to noise
that prevents them from concentrating on their work. Then ask them how much
time they waste looking for places to hold impromptu meetings. Chief
Financial Officers would likely be shocked to hear the results of this
analysis.
Killer #2.
Strategic business goals are thwarted by the physical environment.
Take for example an organization which seeks to minimize organizational
“silos” by promoting cross-functional communication. A survey of this
facility indicates that human interaction takes place in only a few,
pre-booked meeting rooms and one isolated cafeteria. By contrast, a
competing firm with similar goals plans their interactions around a central
hub space that features comfortable seating as well as formal and informal
meeting rooms. What are the bottom line productivity losses or gains for
these different approaches to space planning? What are the capital costs
when a company cannot execute its communication strategy due to planning
barriers?
Killer #3.
Individuals must work around a poor planning solution. During
the mass production era of the Industrial Age, people adjusted their
activities to fit standard office conditions, and the cost of downtime
caused by inappropriate space, noise, or other planning deficiencies seemed
insignificant. Today, the value of time and motivation is too great to
overlook. As a result, community-based and activity-based planning is
replacing uninspired universal solutions. Rather than asking people “Can
you live with these conditions”, the cost-sensitive questions should be
“What is the range of tasks you perform in a day?”, “With whom should you
be interacting?”, and “What kind of environment would inspire you to do your
best work?” Such user-centred design is a growing trend because it aims to
reduce the costs of lost productivity.
Killer #4.
The design scheme contributes to stress-inducing visual clutter.
Industrial era work was predictable and repetitive, with boredom being the
greatest risk to productivity. By contrast, present-day knowledge-based
work tends to involve non-routine issues and complex decision-making. In
fact, experts estimate that more than 70 percent of tasks undertaken today
in organizations are being tackled for the first time. This means that
knowledge-based projects are inherently stressful, without the added
imposition of a chaotic physical environment. Today’s fast rate of growth
and/or contraction typically ends in a haphazard, “bums in seats” approach
to space planning. The outcome: a cluttered work environment. Coping with
this visual confusion is costly in terms of employee motivation, morale, and
retention.
Killer #5.
Superficial “tokens of fun” do not meet user’s true needs.
Simple foosball-and-coffee-bar solutions cannot adequately address complex
communication and staff retention issues. Do companies seriously believe
that today’s “cool” office design clichés will allow them to compete for
mission-critical talent? A truly great place to work builds social capital
by creating an entire physical environment that reflects real concern for
user needs. Studies have indicated that the #1 reason people join a company
is the chance to collaborate on challenging projects—not the standard hip
amenities. Therefore, a deeper analysis of work activities and
communication requirements should be undertaken to support these exciting
activities.
Read the rest of the article
here. |
