Editor’s Note: In this article, authors Yong In and Jan Johnson describe two intertwined methodologies designed to bring more rigor to defining “demand.” Doing so will have at least five very valuable benefits to workers and their organizations.
For all the articles, webinars, op-ed pieces, and conference presentations about how we might develop optimal workplaces, we still see so many organizations grappling with how to get there from here. Clearly, there are things missing in their toolboxes or they would not be seemingly stuck in “analysis paralysis.” We believe those missing elements are those which meaningfully engage workers to tap into their deep understanding of their work.
Our workplace design and management industry is clearly proficient in “supply management,” but in our extensive experience, it is less comfortable or competent in “characterizing demand” and often takes inadequate shortcuts to speed ahead to solutioning and implementation instead of digging into how, when, where, and with whom people accomplish their greatest priorities. Not to mention identifying which of those prioritized activities are better accomplished in person—and emphasizing the relevance of the office and its affordances.
As designers and strategists for the built environment, we believe that this initial pre-design research phase is a critical step in understanding the user needs. After all, we are not artists expressing our own artistic visions through the spaces we design. We have clients and end users who will live and work in the spaces we create. Therefore, instead of defaulting to our own preferences or just plain guessing of what the users may potentially need, actually understanding the users of the space and their needs up front is only the logical first step to approaching any project. For a workplace project, what better way to collect that necessary data than to directly hear from the workers—in their own voice—describing the mission-critical activities and the spaces they need to best support them?
So, what are we advocating for? Two interwoven interactions with a given team: Team Agreements and Mission-Critical Activity Descriptions of their most important collective activities.
Facilitating the development of a Team Agreement has three parts:
- At the strategic level, aiding the team to articulate their overall objectives and the things they will need to start doing, stop doing, or keep doing to accomplish their latest goals.
- At the process level, delving into the specifics of what is required to effectively support their most mission-critical collective activity—things like who’s usually involved, what’s actually being done, how long this activity lasts and how frequently it happens, whether acoustical or visual separation is needed, what kind of furniture and tools are useful, and what technologies are necessary.
- At the team norms level, what expectations are set for response time, availability, “do not disturb” hours, and other ways the team will interact or set consistent ways of doing certain tasks.
The second bullet above overlaps with the Mission-Critical Activity Descriptions process and uncovers the details we need to more accurately determine what types of spaces—of what size, with what affordances, and how many of them—are needed by that team: which are best accommodated within their neighborhood, and which can easily happen in a schedulable shared space.
Even better, if we create a safe space for teams to share their ideas, discuss their differences, and align amongst themselves—essentially coming up with the Team Agreements together—what better way to be a true team? Teams feel heard. They are aligned. They are accountable. Perhaps most importantly, this method provides teams with the autonomy and ownership they deserve. They get to “own” the process, have a tangible record of their Team Agreements and Mission-Critical Activities, and the ability to revise those documents if their business evolves. After all, the only constant is change.
Those shortcuts we mentioned above undermine all the benefits deeply engaging workers can get us. The process of engagement itself supports both worker effectiveness and spatial efficiency goals:
- Engagement sets expectations for the process of engagement and its logic and relevance: Two-way interaction enables two-way dialogue to set parameters /expectations of what’s on and off the table; and explaining the types of information collected and how it’s translated into team collaboration spaces will build trust in the process
- Engagement builds self/team-awareness: Teams shape our and their own understanding about how they work and are likely to use spaces and places; and workers understand their own use cases for how they work and can offer more informed perspectives over time as processes change.
- Engagement reduces “change management:” Individuals’ and teams’ lived experiences are seen and heard; they feel they have contributed to better outcomes; and they come on the journey knowingly and keep us from “designsplaining.”
- Engagement sets team expectations for their work and each other: Discussion enables teams to more intentionally set patterns and expectations of each other (Team Agreements); and they now see and support the rationale for space allocations and designs.
- Engagement sets management expectations: seeing the effort and intention being shown should reassure management that most workers will—along with more autonomy—accept more responsibility to each other for their collective performance.
One additional thought on what these two activities do for us: They help us distinguish what “the office” is for and what activities it must effectively support. They clarify expectations about who and when workers will likely work in the office and why and therefore help CRE teams more accurately determine overall spatial requirements and their attributes.
In fact, there should be a process to continuously involve teams even after move-in. During programming and design phase, playing back what was heard helps validate the interpretation. After the workplace opens, designers should engage workers to review the intended use of the new space and how it aligns with the original Team Agreements and Mission-Critical Activities. Even the most beautiful workplace—with state-of-the-art technology and hospitality-inspired lounges—can become underutilized if the intended purpose isn’t communicated clearly.
We would argue that even after the project is completed and lived in for a period, there should be ongoing check-ins to gather teams’ lived experiences and evolve the workplace accordingly. The agreed upon Team Agreements and Mission-Critical Activity documents would be handy tools to continue the on-going team engagement and establish the company culture built on trust.
As co-authors, we’ve been working together on workplace projects where we incorporated this process during both the pre-design discovery and design phases. Most recently, we applied this methodology to the workplace strategy and design project for Configura, a global software and technology company. We utilized digital tools and Miro boards to facilitate team engagement, inviting participants into an interactive, non-judgmental space to collaborate openly. Their self-directed digital boards and collaborative team insights continue to serve as valuable resources and point of reference for the strategists and designers shaping the workplace solution.
Beyond the tangible, functional benefits, the bigger impact is this: everyone is involved, invested, and heard. And in the end, everyone benefits.
What better way to design the Future of Work, together?