The increasingly collaborative nature of knowledge-based work requires workplaces to support both dynamic interactions and concentrated work, both of which are critical for collaboration performance. Given the prevalence of open-plan settings, this requirement has created new challenges for workplace design. Therefore, an understanding of the relationship between the spatial characteristics of workplace settings and the support for collaboration that is perceived by office workers is valuable and timely. Based on a study of 308 office workers in 27 office spaces, this article examines the relationship between a series of workplace spatial characteristics and the support that is perceived by the occupants for collaborations. The spatial characteristics that were examined included individual workstation characteristics that were derived from the literature and a new set of floor-plan layout variables that highlighted shared spaces that are critical for a variety of formal and informal collaboration activities at work. The key characteristics of workplace spatial settings that were associated with the support that the occupants perceived for collaboration were the distance from workstation to meeting space, the distance from workstation to shared service area, the distance from workstation to kitchen/coffee area, and the percentage of floor space that was dedicated to shared services and amenities.
CharlesK. E.VeitchJ. A. (2002). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 2. Effects of workstation size, partition height and windows (IRC-IR-845). Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fulltext/ir845
7.
DavenportT. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
DavenportT. H.PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
DavenportT. H.ThomasR. J.CantrellS. (2002). The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 23-30.
11.
DeanL. M.PughW. M.GundersonE. (1975). Spatial and perceptual components of crowding: Effects on health and satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 7, 225-236.
12.
DesorJ. A. (1972). Towards a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 79-83.
13.
DruckerP. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
14.
DuffyF. (1992). The changing workplace. London: Phaidon Press Limited.
15.
DuffyF.PowellK. (1997). The new office. London: Conran Octopus.
16.
EvansG. W.JohanssonG.CarrereS. (1994). Psychosocial factors and the physical environment: Inter-relations in the workplace. In CooperC. L.RobertsonI. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.9, pp. 1-30). New York, NY: John Wiley.
17.
FloridaR. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
18.
FriedY.SlowikL. H.Ben-DavidH. A.TiegsR. B. (2001). Exploring the relationship between workspace density and employee attitudinal reactions: An integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 359-372.
19.
GladwellM. (2000, December11). Designs for working. The New Yorker, 76, 60-70.
20.
GullahornJ. (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix. Sociometry, 15, 123-134.
21.
HatchM. J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 387-399.
22.
HeerwagenJ. H.KampschroerK.PowellK. M.LoftnessV. (2004). Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32, 510-528.
23.
HuaY. (2007). Designing open-plan workplaces for collaboration: An exploration of the impact of workplace spatial settings on space perception and collaboration effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
24.
HuaY.LoftnessV.KrautR.PowellK. (2010). Workplace collaborative space layout typology and occupant perception of collaboration environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 429-448.
25.
KrautR. E.FussellS. R.BrennanS. E.SiegelJ. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In HindsP.KieslerS. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
LaingA. (2006). New patterns of work: The design of the office. In WorthingtonJ. (Ed.), Reinventing the workplace (2nd ed., pp. 29-49). Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
27.
McCoyJ. (2000). The creative work environment: The relationship of the physical environment and creative teamwork at a state agency—A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
28.
O’DellC.GraysonC. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice. New York, NY: Free Press.
29.
OldhamG. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 253-358.
30.
OldhamG. R.BrassD. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 267-284.
31.
OldhamG. R.CummingsA.MischelL. J.SchmidtkeJ. M.ZhouJ. (1995). Listen while you work? Quasi-experimental relations between personal-stereo headset use and employee work responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 547 -564.
32.
OldhamG. R.FriedY. (1987). Employee reactions to workspace characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 75-80.
33.
OldhamG. R.KulikC. T.StepinaL. P. (1991). Physical environments and employee reactions: Effects of stimulus-screening skills and job complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 929-938.
34.
OldhamG. R.RotchfordN. L. (1983). Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 542-556.
35.
OlsonJ. S.TeasleyS.CoviL.OlsonG. (2002). The (currently) unique advantage of collocated work. In HindsP.KieslerS. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 113-135). Cambridge: MIT Press.
36.
O’NeillM. J. (1994). Work space adjustability, storage, and enclosures as predictors of employee reactions and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26, 504-526.
37.
O’NeillM. J.CarayonP. (1993). The relationship between privacy, control and stress responses in office workers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
38.
SheridanW. P. (2008). How to think like a knowledge worker. New York, NY: United Nations Public Administration Network.
39.
SundstromE.BurtR. E.KampD. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 101-117.
40.
SundstromE.TownJ. P.RiceR. W.OsbornD. P.BrillM. (1994). Office noise and satisfaction, and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26, 195-222.
41.
VeitchJ. A.CharlesK. E.NewshamG. R.MarquardtC. J. G.GeertsJ. (2003). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 5. Workstation and physical condition effects (IRC-RR-154). Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction.
