In this paper we report a study that uses space-syntax theories and techniques to develop a model explaining how spatial layouts, through their effects on movement and visible copresence, may affect face-to-face interaction in offices. Though several previous space-syntax studies have shown that spatial layouts have significant effects on movement and face-to-face interaction in offices, none has investigated the relations among movement, visible copresence, and face-to-face interaction in offices with significantly different layouts. On the basis of statistical analyses of the spatial and behavioral data collected at four moderately large offices, this study shows that spatial layouts have consistent effects on movement, but inconsistent effects on visible copresence and face-to-face interaction; that visible copresence, not movement, is an important predictor of face-to-face interaction; that movement has negligible effects on the relationship between visible copresence and face-to-face interaction; and that functional programs have little or no effect on the culture of face-to-face interaction in these offices. Limitations of the research design for workplace study and implications of the research findings for workplace design and management are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenT J, 1970, “Communication networks in R&D Laboratories”R&D Management114–21
2.
AllenT J, 1977Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
3.
ApgarIV M, 1998, “The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work”Harvard Business Review76121–136
4.
ASID, 2001FutureWork2020, Phase Two: Presenting the Future of the WorkplaceAmerican Society of Interior Designers, 608 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002–6006, http://www.asid.org/research.asp
5.
BeckerF DSimsW, 2000Managing Uncertainty: Integrated Portfolio Strategies for Dynamic Organizations (The International Workplace Studies Program, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University)
6.
BeckerF DSimsW, 2001Offices That Work: Balancing Communication, Flexibility and Cost (The International Workplace Studies Program, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University)
7.
BeckerF DGieldBGaylinKSayerS, 1983, “Office design in a community college: Effect on work and communication patterns”Environment and Behavior15699–726
8.
BellA, 2000Transforming Your Workplace (Beekman, New York)
9.
BobeleH KBuchananP J, 1979, “Building a more productive environment”Management World8(1) 8
10.
BrillMWeidemannSAssociatesBOSTI, 2001Disproving Widespread Myths About Workplace DesignKimball International, 1600 Royal Street, Jasper, IN 47549
11.
BrookesM JKaplanA, 1972, “The office environment: Space planning and affective behavior”Human Factors14373–391
12.
CampbellD ECampbellT A, 1988, “A new look at informal communication: The role of the physical environment”Environment and Behavior2211–226
13.
CrossRBorgattiS P, 2002, “Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration”California Management Review4425–46
14.
DavisT M R, 1984, “The influence of the physical environment in offices”Academy of Management Review9271–283
15.
DuffyF, 1998Design for Change: The Architecture of DEGW (Watermark, Boston, MA)
16.
DuffyFTanisJ, 1993, “A vision of the new workplace”Industrial Development Section1427–432
17.
FarrenkopfTRothV, 1980, “The university faculty office as an environment”Environment and Behavior12467–477
18.
GhoshalSBartlettC A, 1995, “Changing the role of top management: Beyond structure to processes”Harvard Business Review7386–96
19.
GoodrichR, 1982, “Seven office evaluations: A review”Environment and Behavior14353–378
20.
GrajewskiT, 1992Interaction in the Work Environment unpublished PhD thesis, University College London, London
21.
HallE, 1966The Hidden Dimension (Doubleday, New York)
22.
HatchM J, 1987, “Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms”Administrative Science Quarterly32387–399
23.
HillierB, 1996Space is the Machine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
24.
HillierBGrajewskiT, 1987The Application of Space Syntax to Work Environment Inside Buildings final report, Unit for Architectural Studies, University College London, London
25.
HillierBHansonJ, 1984The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
26.
HillierBPennA, 1991, “Visible colleges: Structure and randomness in the place of discovery”Science in Context423–49
27.
HillierBPennA, 1992, “The social potential of buildings: Space and the innovative milieu in scientific research laboratories”, in Proceedings of the Corporate Space and Architecture Conference, Paris available from the Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, London
28.
HillierBPennAHansonJGrajewskiTXuJ, 1993, “Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2029–66
29.
KellerR THollandW E, 1983, “Communicators and innovators in research and development organizations”Academy of Management Journal26742–749
30.
LeibsonD E, 1981, “How corning designed a ‘talking’ building to spur productivity”Management Review708–13
31.
OGP, 2002, “The integrated workplace: a comprehensive approach to developing workspace”, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Real Property, US General Services Administration, Washington, DC
32.
OldhamG R, 1988, “Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment”Journal of Applied Psychology73253–258
33.
OldhamG RBrassD J, 1979, “Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment”Administrative Science Quarterly24267–284
34.
OldhamG RFriedY, 1987, “Employee reactions to workplace characteristics”Journal of Applied Psychology7275–80
35.
OldhamG RRotchfordN L, 1983, “Relationship between office characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment”Administrative Science Quarterly28542–556
36.
ParsonsH M, 1976, “Work environments”, in Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, Volume 1 Eds AltmanIWohlwillJ F (Plenum, New York) 163–209
37.
PennADesyllasJVaughanL, 1997, “The space of innovation”, in Proceedings of the Space Syntax First International SymposiumSpace Syntax Laboratory, University College London, London, volume 1, pp 12.1–12.24
38.
PeponisJHanjinikolaouELivieratosCFatourosD A, 1989, “The spatial core of urban culture”Ekistics number 334–335, 43–55
39.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidMKimS HBafnaS, 1997, “On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: Convex partitions and their local properties”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24761–781
40.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidMBafnaSKimS H, 1998a, “Describing plan configuration according to the covisibility of surfaces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25693–708
41.
PeponisJWinemanJBafnaSRashidMKimS H, 1998b, “On the generation of linear representations of spatial configuration”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25559–576
42.
RashidMZimringC, 2003, “Organizational constructs and the structure of space”, in Proceedings of the Space Syntax SymposiumUniversity College London, London, available from the authors
43.
SerratoMWinemanJ D, 1997, “Enhancing communication in lab-based organizations”, in Proceedings of the Space Syntax SymposiumUniversity College London, London, volume 1, pp 15.1–15.8
44.
SerratoMWinemanJ D, 1999, “Spatial and communication patterns in research and development”, in Proceedings of the Space Syntax SymposiumUniversity of Brasilia, Brasilia, volume 1, pp 11.1–11.8
45.
SommerR, 1967a, “Small group ecology”Psychological Bulletin67145–152
46.
SommerR, 1967b, “Sociofugal space”American Journal of Psychology72654–659
47.
SteinzorB, 1950, “The spatial factors in face to face discussion groups”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology45552–555
48.
SundstromEAltmanL, 1989, “Physical environments and work-group effectiveness”Research in Organizational Behavior11175–209
49.
WinemanJ D, 1986Behavioral Issues in Office Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
50.
WinemanJ DSerratoM, 1998, “Facility design for high-performance teams”Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance Ed. SundstromEric (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) pp 271–298
