Proximity and collaboration: measuring workplace configuration

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to describe how to measure workplace configuration, show its application in, and the results of, a field experiment aimed at improving collaborative knowledge work and identify and discuss larger problems involved with research on workplace configuration. Design/methodology/approach -The paper reviews recent thought on density, proximity and problems with evaluating configuration. It then describes a method of spatial network analysis used in a field experiment involving the reconfiguration of a workplace. This is followed with a discussion of recent research on knowledge work from economic geography. Findings -It was found that, instead of increasing it, the reconfigured workplace decreased collaborative activity. The spatial network analysis shows how this occurred. Research limitations/implications -This method of spatial network analysis, when used carefully, is a robust technique for analyzing and comparing spatial configuration. Further research needs to address the links between spatial proximity and information and communications technologies as well as the relation of types of knowledge bases and associated forms of proximity that can stimulate collaboration. Practical implications -While spatial network analysis methods are not do-it-yourself tools, corporate real estate managers should employ them, especially in larger-scale projects, before committing to final workplace designs. They can also use them to identify and map best spatial patterns (like best practices) to identify strategic spatial patterns. Originality/value -This appears to be the first rigorous application of spatial network methods in a field experiment involving a real workplace. The paper shows the method can clearly extract and discriminate spatial network patterns underlying configurations and relate them both quantitatively and graphically to employee evaluations of collaborative performance. It introduces concepts of comparative knowledge bases that need to be understood in determining the types of collaboration needed in a workplace.

Location Type Choice for Face-to-Face Interactions in Business Centers

“…Respondents were asked to indicate whether they have a personal office, a shared office on rotating basis, or a nonterritorial office (adapted from Van Meel, 2000). In the ESM questionnaire, respondents were asked about the duration of the interaction and whether the interaction is preplanned, intentionally unscheduled, or coincidental (Appel-Meulenbroek et al, 2017; M. G. Brown, 2008;Koch & Steen, 2012). Respondents were also asked to indicate whether the interaction is a social (informal) or work-related (formal) interaction.…”

Associations of Surgical Team Communication With the Layout of Physical Space: A Network Analysis of the Operating Room in a Military Medical Center

“…Spatial network analysis enables us to understand complex workplace layouts, such as large medical centers, in terms of relationships among the rooms and other spaces (Brown, 2008). Latent factors related to the spatial environment may explain why approaches like crew resource management principles borrowed from the aviation sector have had mixed results at best for improving surgical team communication (Frasier et al, 2017; McCulloch et al, 2011).…”

On Serendipitous Campus Meetings: A User Survey

“…In this paper, an unplanned meeting will be defined as a serendipitous meeting between at least two people that is a direct result of coincidental visual contact. To specify further, following Brown [ 10 ] (cited by [ 11 ] p. 878), intentional unscheduled visits (the initiator of the conversation walked up to someone) are not included. The focus is on conversations initiated after coincidental visual contact (partners happened to see each other and started talking).…”