Spatial Layout and Face-to-Face Interaction in Offices—A Study of the Mechanisms of Spatial Effects on Face-to-Face Interaction

Abstract

This paper reports a study that uses space syntax theories and techniques to develop a model explaining how spatial layouts, through their effects on movement and visible co-presence, may affect face-to-face interaction in offices. While several previous space syntax studies have shown that spatial layouts have significant effects on movement and face-to-face interaction in offices, none has investigated the relations among movement, visible co-presence, and face-to-face interaction in offices with significantly different layouts. Based on statistical analyses of the spatial and behavioral data collected at four moderately large offices, this study shows that spatial layouts have consistent effects on movement, but inconsistent effects on visible copresence and face-to-face interaction; that visible co-presence, not movement, is an important predictor of face-to-face interaction; that movement has negligible effects on the relationship between visible co-presence and face-to-face interaction; and that functional programs have little or no effect on the culture of face-to-face interaction in these offices. Limitations of the research design for workplace study and implications of the research findings for workplace design and management are discussed.

How CREM Can Measure Added Value of Building Design: Knowledge Sharing in Research Buildings

“…The frequency of meetings between people who work on different floors inside a building is lower than between people on the same floor (Parsons, 1976in: Rashid et al, 2006Spiliopoulou and Penn, 1999). This effect becomes smaller when the floors are bigger (Grajewski, 1992;Becker et al, 1995).…”

“…Working in the same project room provides accessibility, but also normal workspaces that are visually open enhance face-to-face interaction through seeing and overhearing (Ward and Holtham, 2000;Rashid et al, 2006;Markhede and Koch, 2007;Sailer et al, 2007).…”

A study of the effects of colocation on office workers' perception

“…The physical environment of workplaces, which include the physical design as well as the ambient environment of workplaces, is no different. Workplace design is particularly important for it also facilitates and/or constrains individual, group and organizational psychology, behaviors, functions and performance to define the organizational and professional environments in the workplace (for evidence supporting the claim, in addition to the above citations also see Appel-Meulenbroek & Feijts, 2007;de Croon et al, 2005;Haynes, 2007;Lee & Brand, 2005;Niemi &Lindholm, 2010;Rashid, et al, 2006Rashid, et al, , 2009. For example, in a review of literature in fields relevant to Corporate Real Estate (CRE), Appel-Meulenbroek and Feijts (2007) found that as many as 51 aspects of the physical environment of CRE could affect organizational performance.…”

“…In these workplaces, spaces are also made highly interconnected with increased visibility, openness, and accessibility in order to boost chance encounters which can lead to meaningful interactions. Additionally, these workplaces also provide a wide variety of features, such as kitchens, stocked refrigerators, central service hubs, recreational facilities, comfortable furniture, and attractive lounge-like spaces in public and/or semipublic territories (Rashid et al, 2006;2009). A recent publication of the Office of the Government-wide Policy of the General Services Administration of the US Government includes several examples of such innovative offices (OGP, 2002).…”

Spatial Configuration of Japanese Elementary Schools: Analyses by the Space Syntax and Evaluation by School Teachers

“…Wineman and Peponis (2010) analyzed the movement and syntax of an open plan museum. Rashid (2006) performed axial analysis of space syntax in four different workplaces and found the relation between communication and office layouts. Peponis et al (2007) analyzed the space syntax of work places and the spatial structure supporting organizational cultures using cognitive functions.…”