We’re in it together
Guy Moody
Open plan working is nothing new, but as increases in property costs bite, more employers see a move to open plan working as a way of reducing the property overhead. It can also be a way of reducing status issues towards a more egalitarian approach.
Richard Kauntze, chief executive of the British Council for Offices, believes that this trend is a good thing. It promotes connectivity, breaking down traditional barriers and leading to a greater sense of unity within the organisation. Savings can be made, with reductions in storage costs, utility bills and construction.
|
|
But there are, he concedes, downsides. Open plan working will generally bring an increase in noise, interruption, a lack of privacy and occasionally unwanted behaviours. Problems that can be difficult to deal with, but that are not insurmountable.
The challenge is to deal fairly and effectively with the issues. Some surveys estimate that workers are up to 20 per cent less effective in an open plan environment. Constant interruptions lead to a fall in morale and some people will be unhappy in full public view. If the situation is not managed correctly good people will leave.
And Kauntze says looking to make savings on property can really be a false economy. Typically building costs account for 15 per cent of an organisation’s overhead, with staff costs making up the majority of the rest. Badly planned accommodation changes can have a disproportionate effect. Small savings on that 15 per cent can lead to significant and costly problems elsewhere such as staff not being able to concentrate on difficult tasks because of interruptions, and poor productivity.
|
|
Martin Wood, managing director of interior designers Spaceoasis, is critical of those whose approach to open plan is simply “to squeeze as many staff into as small an area as possible”. He firmly believes that forward looking companies who put time and care into reorganising the open plan working space will avoid many of the behavioural problems that can occur such as people walking through someone else’s work area or staff eating pungent smelling food at their desks. He says by making the office a good place to be, people will react positively to their surroundings.
And Hugh Paul, director at Koenig Neurath also warns against squeezing too many people into a work area without a wider review of breakout areas and policies. To do so he counsels “will see good people making for the door, especially if their colleagues are anti-social, noisy, smelly and spill coffee over their paperwork.” Paul says that potential issues need to be addressed by careful planning.
The task is to identify how much space is needed for a particular task. “And then”, says David Back MD of Artillery Interior Design, “the challenge is to convince the workforce that space is not a personal commodity, rather a resource of the organisation that can be used to meet the specific needs of individuals.”
Artillery undertook the refurbishment of Amnesty International’s premises in London’s Easton Street, and Back found the services of the FM team invaluable. He says that they challenged many of the assumptions made by staff prior to the refit, and found much duplication of resources, which could be centralised freeing up further working space.
WILL SOMEONE GET THAT PHONE?
Telephones in the office are a necessary evil. A ringing phone demands an instant attention and a telephone devoid of answer phone or transfer will shriek loudly until someone picks up.
And unanswered calls are a major cause for complaint of many, along with extended calls, loud telephone voices, listening to voicemail on speakerphones, conference calls held at an adjacent desk and novelty ring tones on mobiles. Meanwhile some workers do not relish the possibility of their calls being overheard.
K&N’s Hugh Paul is forthright on the subject. There are simply too many phones he complains. Often the number of phones in the office outnumbers people and, unless diverted, the resultant ringing will constantly interrupt concentration. But telephone conversations can be equally distracting for colleagues working within earshot, and Paul believes that people should be given the opportunity to make, and take, calls away from their desk, especially if it is anticipated that the call may be a long one. He also firmly believes that mobile phones should be switched to silent mode during the working day with personal calls being actively discouraged.
Ann Woodall at Little, Brown Book Group says that the potential for interruption by telephone users was taken in to account on the firm’s move into new open plan accommodation. Some work areas for quiet concentration, were designed to be computer and phone free, but additionally technology was provided to allow people to take calls elsewhere. “You have” she says, “to be able to give people the opportunity to walk away from the desk”.
Optimum environment
FM coach Liz Kentish also believes that the FM has a central role for those working in an open plan environment in gathering and sharing best practice to allow the people to get the best out of their workplace. Often the FM role will be to educate in the use of systems, such as air ventilation or telephones. Back advises that the consultation process must be sufficiently robust to get to the bottom of any organisational issues so that underlying problems can be identified and incorporated at the design stage: “Once the root cause is identified problems can be dealt with.”
To deal with the issue of managing personal comfort zones Back suggests designing flexibility into the workspace, allowing those with specific requirements to sit together wherever possible. The chilly mortals can share the hotspots, the rugged outdoor types the open window on freezing winter mornings. But it may be the case that problems manifested in an open plan environment are already in the organisational culture. So would it be possible for a building or change of working conditions to really change a company’s culture?
“Absolutely” says Kauntze, “you must talk to your people about what works for them and why it works for them” and then plan for whatever works best for your business.
Behavioural study
But is there a need for a formal policy to regulate areas of behaviour that cannot be addressed by design alone?
Wood doesn’t see the problem of poor workplace etiquette necessarily being down simply to open plan working, ” The designer’s brief is to provide an environment conducive to best working practices, after that it’s down to the office management” he says, implying that some form of policy is a necessity. And the timing of the introduction of the policy is critical. Publishers Little, Book had a 100 day moratorium after they moved into their new, open-plan, premises. Only then was feedback collated from staff and a set of house rules drawn up. As Ann Woodhall, director of HR and facilities says “a list of dos and don’ts would have put staff off from the outset”.
But what to include? Eating in the workplace has been identified as a major irritant, so should you allow eating at the desk if the company is well provided with other areas for that purpose? Woodhall says that hot food must be consumed within the kitchen areas, while in some parts of the workplace it is banned altogether and Kentish reports that she knows of companies that having provided well lit and ventilated areas for eating ‘actively’ encourage people away from their desks at meal times. The consensus appears to be that change to working cultures will need to be supported from the very top of the organisation. As Back says, “Line management and culture is critical”. And line management starts at the top.
Guy Moody is a freelance journalist