Purpose, process, place: design as a research tool

Abstract

PurposeThe objective of this paper is to investigate how design variables – specifically spatial arrangements and adjacencies (which are termed “place”) – can be best deployed to improve working practices (which are called “process”) in order to help creative organisations to enhance the performance of working groups (i.e. support managerial purpose).Design/methodology/approachObservations of space use over time and questionnaires eliciting participants' opinions on the impact of the new spatial arrangements on working methods were used in two healthcare companies to study the outcomes of pilot projects.FindingsThe managerial objectives in both companies were to create working environments that could be used to stimulate interaction within and between diverse disciplines brought together to develop new healthcare products. Significant benefits were reported, particularly improved accessibility and collaboration within and between working groups – an important conclusion is that no individual design feature was responsible for the changes but rather the weaving together of place and process in pursuit of managerial purpose.Research limitations/implicationsThe interaction of purpose, place and process has led one to conclude that methods dependent on limiting variables and controlling contexts are not appropriate for studying relationships between environment, productivity and user satisfaction. The synoptic, multivariate and interventionist Harvard Business School case study method may be more appropriate.Originality/valueEnvironmental variables are far from being irrelevant to achieving improvements in organisational performance in creative organisations. However, context, purpose and process must also be taken into account.

The characteristics to consider in municipal shared spaces

“…As also mentioned in the theory section, the aspects of flexible working and agile workspaces, which are important elements in shared space and one of the key elements from the workshop, are described by a number of authors such as (Luck, 2015), (Bell & Anderson, 1999) and (Hewitt, 1997), not to mention the many guides on designing open space offices from for example (Duffy, Craig, & Gillen, 2011) and many others.…”

University campuses in spatial transformation

“…He proposes an alternative definition for space as "the material support of time-sharing social practices". Duffy et al (2011) agree by proposing a shift in workplace design from the Tayloristic paradigm of dividing to rule to totally opposite: a cohesion of context, design and user variables to maximize choices. As the means, times and places of working and learning scatter based on an individual's daily routines, and effective and efficient spatial facilitation of working and learning becomes increasingly complex (Worthington, 2001;Joroff, 2002;van der Voordt, 2004; van Meel, 2011;Appel-Meulenbroek et al, 2011;Harrison and Hutton, 2014), challenging the facilities management (FM) professionals in their daily work.…”

Corporate real estate asset management: aligned vision

“…This research argues that the creative processes of discovery, sharing and pushing knowledge forward should not be restricted by predetermined physical workspaces (Duffy, Craig and Gillan 2011). This call for a more adaptive approach to workplaces requires the CRE manager to apply more social science research skills to understanding the needs and preferences of the office occupiers.…”

“…The matching of processes to place is a fundamental one, and is developed even further by research undertaken by Duffy et al (2011) who argue that context and purpose should also be taken into account. This research argues that the creative processes of discovery, sharing and pushing knowledge forward should not be restricted by predetermined physical workspaces (Duffy, Craig and Gillan 2011).…”