I always wonder when i see reports like this at the amount of cherry picked data in the studies - and also the ability for the journalist to properly interpret it. The problem i have with this piece and so many others is that its just calls out a number of sometimes unrelated "problems", cites some studies with open offices and calls it a day. They fail to really come up with a strong conclusion or offer viable solutions.
As a designer working under an architect and having just completed an open office building for a 150+ employee financial firm[1] - i feel i have a pretty good handle on this subject. There a a couple key anecdotal design criteria that i'd like to address in relation to open offices that the report does not address.
Natural Light - Access to natural light
Artificial light - using the correct lighting for the task with the right output measured in lumens for the particular task.
Ventilation - Natural and sufficient HVAC
Acoustics - Are proper acoustic absorbent materials being used.
Planning - has the space been thought out in a thorough way - is there a meaningful program to which the open office functions in both arrangement, flow and activities.
Psychology - Has there been effort to educate the staff about the new space and general systems in place to govern how it functions.
All of these points above can be easily planned for by hiring and adhering to the advice of design professionals like architects, electrical engineers, hydraulic engineers, acoustic consultants etc. Does this happen? In my experience - the answer is generally - no. Building offices and fitting thee out is an expensive exercise and time and time again i see clients willing to cut corners and forgo professional advice at the sake of saving a few thousand dollars. It may be that the ROI in terms of employee productivity could be significantly diminished due to a insignificant saving during the build phase.
I would agree in some respects that there are limitation to open office layouts - but that its due more to the ill-conceived notion that achieving an open office work environment is as easy throwing some workstation and humans into a cavernous space and expecting it to just work.
Moreover that is why indeed planners are moving away from open office and employing the newer philosophy of ABW (activity based working)[2].
As a designer working under an architect and having just completed an open office building for a 150+ employee financial firm[1] - i feel i have a pretty good handle on this subject. There a a couple key anecdotal design criteria that i'd like to address in relation to open offices that the report does not address.
Natural Light - Access to natural light
Artificial light - using the correct lighting for the task with the right output measured in lumens for the particular task.
Ventilation - Natural and sufficient HVAC Acoustics - Are proper acoustic absorbent materials being used.
Planning - has the space been thought out in a thorough way - is there a meaningful program to which the open office functions in both arrangement, flow and activities.
Psychology - Has there been effort to educate the staff about the new space and general systems in place to govern how it functions.
All of these points above can be easily planned for by hiring and adhering to the advice of design professionals like architects, electrical engineers, hydraulic engineers, acoustic consultants etc. Does this happen? In my experience - the answer is generally - no. Building offices and fitting thee out is an expensive exercise and time and time again i see clients willing to cut corners and forgo professional advice at the sake of saving a few thousand dollars. It may be that the ROI in terms of employee productivity could be significantly diminished due to a insignificant saving during the build phase.
I would agree in some respects that there are limitation to open office layouts - but that its due more to the ill-conceived notion that achieving an open office work environment is as easy throwing some workstation and humans into a cavernous space and expecting it to just work.
Moreover that is why indeed planners are moving away from open office and employing the newer philosophy of ABW (activity based working)[2].
[1]http://marklawlerarchitects.com.au/commercial/hunter-street-...
[2]http://www.jll.com.au/australia/en-au/Documents/jll-au-activ...