For the past several years, Dean Strombom and Sven Govaars of Gensler’s Houston office have been exploring and exploiting the patterns of behavior derived from the multi-year, multi-client, multi-jurisdiction Gensler Workplace Survey. Mr. Strombom is one of Gensler’s Firmwide Energy Practice Area Leaders, a Strategic Advisor to the Landlord Services practice, and a Houston office Studio Leader. Mr. Govaars is an office leader in design performance with an expertise in organizational strategy and change management. Together, they represent an amalgam of perspectives, designer – consultant, that is proving to be beneficial, and perhaps necessary, to better understand the purpose, utility and multi-level practical benefits of the very broad field of workplace environment design.
Some workplace design sectors – mainly interior design, workplace furnishing manufacturers and some professional organizations – have been investigating the nature of the workplace at a deliberate pace for the past two decades, and surely beyond. While they have introduced interesting products and designs, not until recently have they begun to more methodically incorporate and be guided by use-data that clarifies the relationships among workers and their work environments. Previously, such work was mainly the province of research organizations such as Orfield Laboratories, Minneapolis, MN, http://www.orfieldlabs.com.
The Gensler Houston work consolidates some of the progress made in this area and broadcasts its findings and ideas to a wider audience. Perhaps most importantly, it stamps upon this approach the imprimatur of the world’s largest A&D firm. The effect of this, we hope, will be to accelerate progress and to help develop new norms for a data-based foundation for workplace design.
One important aspect of the Gensler work is that it is experientially based, rather than a priori theoretical – that is a framework of thought derived from so-called first principles as enunciated in the sacred volumes of intellectual investigations; examples of a priori thinking include the work of early geometers and philosophers such as Euclid and Plato. The Gensler work, on the other hand, aligns with that of science, relying on a range of empirical results to provide a theory that may ultimately result in a predictive model. (See, generally, Interior Architecture is Not Interior Design, https://officeinsight.com/1991 (2014.01.13 officeinsight)) In this regard, the Gensler work is converging with the Evidenced-based Design movement, which is more directly centered on healthcare and educational design, but whose concepts are clearly applicable, generally, to the broader realm of interior design.
Gensler Presentation: Summary
I will first quickly summarize the latest Gensler-Houston presentation, Vuja De: The Disruptive Workplace, officeinsight 8.10.15, https://officeinsight.com/2336, first proffered at NeoCon 2015, before commenting on what I consider its most important message, the need for paradigm shifts as an integral part of design thinking.
>Disruption is the breakdown of traditional notions:
In the Strombom/Govaars view, the term “disruptive workplace” – not to be confused with a “distracting workplace” – refers to a paradigm shift regarding office design. A disruptive workplace is one that moves beyond traditional notions of what the workplace is or should be. Instead, it presents a new vision for the work environment, one that “empowers the individual, not the space.” Such a work environment will enable individuals to choose where, when and how they work, thus disrupting conventional thoughts of office practice.
Achieving a new paradigm requires a recognition that traditional styles of work and workplace design present barriers to optimizing work, especially in achieving the creativity and innovation required in many businesses. The new paradigm under consideration explores the types of work-styles that will organically develop in a more flexible environment; in addition to new work-styles, this new paradigm encompasses various modes of co-working.
Mr. Govaars also pointed out in a private conversation that disruption is but one avenue to innovation. In addition, he said, the new paradigm should acknowledge the whole person, not just work-style and performance; that’s the theme driving the growing importance of recharge or rejuvenation settings alongside the focus, collaborate, learning and socialize zones of the workplace.
>Trends driving the vision:
According to Messrs. Strombom and Govaars, the current disruptive workplace vision is being facilitated by certain trends, which include new-worker expectations, new technologies and the resulting behavior changes, and the expanding parameters of the globalized workplace, including that of easy access to information worldwide. One key to new paradigms is a shift in behavior. “A revolution doesn’t happen when people adopt new tools. It happens when people adopt new behaviors.” (Clay Sirky)
>Overcoming Resistance:
Change management techniques have become part of the interior designer’s tool kit as new ways of working and new workplace designs have been introduced. Resistance to change can be overcome with the availability of tools supporting the change, and the implementation and enforcement of new rules, which in turn produce new behavioral norms.
>Bottom Line: Diversity and Adaptability:
Under the developing new vision, said the Gensler team, workspaces must vary and communicate a use-purpose. They must be immediately adaptable to present desires and demands, and must have the technology necessary for virtual functioning. The spaces should include “We” spaces alongside “Me” spaces. They should also embrace a new coworking environment, one that may include temporary workers and workers from other divisions and sectors.
>The Gensler Houston Experiment (G6), a Learning Lab:
Gensler’s Houston office has put these ideas into practice in its own learning lab, called G6, based upon Gensler research and metrics. The office created certain facilitating tools including:
-Storytelling to inform users about the space; in this case, it used an airline theme
-A “Flight Manual” serving as a user guide
-A website to provide technology support; it also contained a well-being guide
-Sophisticated sensor technology to monitor activity
Larger-scale work environments are also envisioned, e.g. city-wide work environments. In fact, just a week or so ago, Gensler Houston opened a satellite co-working space in The Woodlands as an extension of its eco-system of choice and balance.
A website, http://www.flyong6.com, much more completely describes this project and sets forth additional information, such as the Flight Manual. This is really a complete and marvelously instructive aid to learning about the theory in practice. According to Mr. Govaars, the sensor technology “is being explored,” which they are continuing to use it along with entry-card data and work-setting reservation systems for unassigned spaces.
On a side note, it is gratifying to see the continued development of the use of sensory technology to accumulate readily available data regarding important physical aspects of the workplace. This basic type of important data collection has been available for years. Over a decade ago, Haworth, in a far-sighted move, worked with Orfield Labs in Minneapolis using Orfield’s Performance Tripod to accumulate environmental data on a few large projects (See generally, Orfield Corporate Consortium XIV: Architectural Dynamics, officeinsight 8.7.06, https://officeinsight.com/263) Now, in addition to Gensler, IBM has picked up the idea to improve employee wellness. (See IBM Researchers Try to Measure Employee Well-Being Using Technology http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/07/08/ibm-researchers-try-to-measure-employee-well-being-using-technology/; see also, Sound Off: Curating a Conscious Acoustical Experience, officeinsight 5.12.14, https://officeinsight.com/2071)
There are important historical reasons why interior design professionals have not taken command of the matters measured by the Orfield Labs Performance Tripod, but they are no longer persuasive. Stepping back a little, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the fundamentals of acoustics, lighting, climate and air quality are the necessary ground upon which all other interior design contributions are made.
Commentary
Perhaps the most noteworthy addition to the body of knowledge that has been disseminated through the annual Strombom/Govaars lectures was the reference in this year’s presentation to double-loop learning, a theory advanced by Chris Argyris, an organizational learning theorist. (http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/) This theory is cited by Messrs. Strombom and Govaars to explain the current arc of workplace design, but I note that double-loop learning is of more general application.
We all have an intuitive understanding of double-loop learning. In every-day problem solving, we might urge “approaching a problem from a different angle,” or, in the vernacular, we might suggest a little “thinking outside the box.” What all of these phrases refer to is a paradigm shift, a different way of looking at a problem or a task. It is, however, one thing to have an intuitive grasp of a concept and quite another to know when and how to use it. I suggest that the concept of double-loop learning/design, or paradigm shift, is fundamental to improving design and to advancing any body of knowledge, to say nothing of its problem solving utility.
The important factor in any paradigm shift is that the attention moves from a complete focus on the problem to a close analysis of the factors and parameters being considered to reach a solution or product.
We know that the ability to adapt is the sine qua non of survivability for any living thing. For humans, in particular, the near-term emphasis is on the ability to learn, which requires feedback, whether in the form of comparing and contrasting various results or in the form of reinforcement (positive or negative). Success, or at least improvement or the attainment of a desired state, involves the detection and correction of error. (Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.)
This is commonplace to us all, certainly experientially, to wit, placing one’s hand on a hot stove. There, the lesson is simply: Hot, Hurt, Don’t Do; we generalize this to many things that give off a glow and have a higher temperature. And, of course, we are all familiar with the value of single-loop learning in several of its other forms. This is essentially a first-order feedback arrangement such as that employed by a thermostat. In the context of manufacturing and design, we see single-loop learning in the form of rapid continuous improvement systems such as that for which HNI organizations are well-known, rapid prototyping, pilot projects and learning labs. Basically, single-loop learning, or cybernetics, is a methodology that exploits and seeks to improve performance in the context of a given set of parameters or within a given paradigm.
Within the context of workplace design, we have seen the effects of working within a single-loop paradigm. Herman Miller introduced Action Office in 1968, opening the path toward a new way of looking at office design. Since that time, until about five years ago, furniture manufacturers and workplace designers plumbed the depths of the systems movement moving through variations ranging from Herman Miller’s Ethospace and Resolve through Knoll’s Currents, A3 and Autostrada to Haworth’s electrified panels and Premise, to provide just a few examples. Notable outliers to this line of thinking/development were Steelcase with its Pathways and interior architecture portfolios of the late 1990s and the work of Mogens Smed and his colleagues, first at Smed International and, presently, at DIRTT Environmental Solutions. (For examples of these systems products see “Additional Photos,” below )
More recently, we have seen Knoll (with Holly Hunt), Herman Miller (with Design Within Reach) and Haworth (with Paltrona Frau) move directly into residential markets as the office and governmental business has diminished, rather than expand. (These moves, of course, were taken for economic reasons and may not have significant implications for the workplace, but we shall see; attention to aesthetics and physical comfort can have their own edifying aspects.)
Ultimately, these variations gave rise to composite or mash-up systems combinations until, voila!, a new paradigm began to emerge, the second loop of double-loop learning and design. In what may be the best illustration of a paradigm shift blossoming, Herman Miller engaged product designer Doug Ball to develop a new system. Mr. Ball had in mind what might be considered the ne plus ultra of the cubical system, and he pretty much achieved it with My Studio. But the marketing and product development folks at Miller had something else in mind, a less expensive and more flexible and “open-air” arrangement. So, in addition to My Studio, Mr. Ball designed Vivo, which was an immediate success, answering the market’s desire for well-designed furniture at a much reduced price point. This market demand was obviously another trend encouraging a paradigm shift.
A large amount of credit goes to marketing and product development at Herman Miller who, working with Jeffrey Bernett and Nicholas Dodziuk, picked up the ball and scored by taking Vivo from a product line to a whole new concept, the Canvas Office Landscape system, expanding the vocabulary and providing a developed conceptual framework for office design and furnishings.
Along the way, designers and manufacturers seemed struck with the notion of using showroom vignettes as a stepping stone to the variegated workplace of today. And, yes, many of the alternate workplace ideas of the turn of the century (20th to 21st) and the dot.com era – hoteling, benching, desking, at home in the office (and vice-versa), etc. – have been integrated into the mainstream with everything else: do what you want, where you want, when you want, wearing what you want; just produce. (Another paradigm shift.)
As we have seen in office design, double loop-learning, or double-loop design is not so much concerned with the improvement of a given system, such as has been illustrated by exploring variations or providing product extensions or reducing cycle or production time or reducing errors, defects or injuries. Rather, double-loop learning/design has to do with the redesign of the system, the re-evaluation of assumptions and so forth. Unlike single-loop design, where the diagnostic system measures output against various “internal,” pre-established parameters, double-loop design also takes into account various external parameters, such as market choices, new materials and new technologies (for the product or for production) and other more general performance criteria. These, collectively, lead one to conclude either that improvement of the existing system has been exhausted or that survival or competitive advantage requires a rethinking of the whole system.
Thus, while it may be true that double-loop learning theory is helpful in explaining resistance to change, as cited by the Strombom/Govaars presentation – after all, rethinking a paradigm is risky since, by definition, the new is untested – in the broader context it seems clear that optimal design requires systems with diagnostic methods that continuously monitor and implement both single-loop and double-loop learning and design.
This idea, while perhaps not pervasive, has been articulated in several contexts. The philosopher, historian and physicist Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458113/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=) introduced the term “paradigm shift,” to describe progress in science, noting that, rather than progressing in a linear way, science progresses through paradigm shifts, between which progress consisted of exploring and exploiting the then prominent paradigm. Classic examples of this are found in the Copernican revolution (the earth circumnavigating the sun) and quantum mechanics (we can’t possibly know all factors related to subatomic particles at once, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the assertion that quantum phenomena can only be understood in stochastic terms). About the latter, even Albert Einstein resisted this paradigm shift remarking that, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.”
More recently, the double-loop approach has become an integral part of systems thinking. (In a nutshell, systems thinking is a perspective that views everything as a variable in a greater, integrated set of variables or system. Thus, for example, we refer to various geographic areas as constituting an “ecosystem” and various social groupings as social systems, say a family (natural or gang-related).) The existence of systems is easily seen when a system is disturbed, for example, by a super predator, such as humans, the European discovery of the Americas, the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes and the infestation of the gypsy moth of the New England woods.
In economic and organizational systems thinking, whether in the context of a production cycle or organizational behavior, one must always look to improve. In today’s competitive environment, that means paradigm shifts will be required more frequently. This is understood, at least darkly, by most businessmen, at least insofar as it relates to their primary mission. Resistance to change must be understood and addressed, not merely through substitute incentives and the like, but through developing a culture that acknowledges double-loop learning/design must be a part of expectations.
The important factor in any paradigm shift is that attention moves from a complete focus on the problem to a close analysis of the factors and parameters being considered to reach a solution or product.
The workplace design professions face several hurdles in considering paradigm shifts, not the least of which is the conservatism of many of its clients. More importantly, however, interior design is not yet fundamentally oriented toward measurable improvement. Where one does not have an extensive foundation of implementing single-loop learning, i.e., the clear and detailed specification of performance criteria and their accurate measurement, one cannot expect an accurate diagnostic system that indicates the imminence of a paradigm shift, let alone what its direction might be.
Nonetheless, the A&D community has a few excellent examples of the benefits of paradigm shifts. Mid-20th century and later, perhaps even to this day, a dominant theme and aspiration in architecture was that practicing professionals should become, well, prima donnas, today’s starchitects. But three individuals, Arthur Gensler (in 1965), John Nelson, Sr. (in 1977) and David Mourning (in 1984) struck out in a new direction creating, respectively, Gensler, Nelson and IA Interior Architects. These three firms, all taking notably different paths, but all diverging from the mainstream and placing a new emphasis on interior design and general business practices, became Giants (in the formulation of Interior Design magazine) many years ago.
But what happens when you stick to the “tried and true?” Perhaps it is fitting to end with a personal anecdote. Over a decade ago, I slipped into the first Interior Design/IIDA Principal’s Roundtable at NeoCon East. This was during the 2001-2003 recession where many workplace designers were bemoaning the lack of business and the unfairly, competitive environment for fees. In connection with the discussion, a principal from a prominent A&D firm commented that their firm had spent the past years examining every aspect of their practice and procedures to tighten and improve operations, all with very little effect. I observed that, if all they were looking at was within their firm, they were not really in the ballgame.
Not unexpectedly, my feedback was not well received, and I was thereafter admonished to keep my mouth shut if I were going to attend future such gatherings. (Admittedly, my remark was tactless, but still … .)
The point of my comment at that time was that A&D firms should view their practices in the context of their role in the supply chains that enabled their clients to pursue their mission. Now, of course, I might have thought, at least to myself, that this principal’s comment was a very good indicator that a paradigm shift was needed. Perhaps it still is, but I see it coming.