Download ppt - World FM Day conference/ Google London, 28 th August 2009 Work-culture and Workplaces around the World Philip Tidd, Managing Director DEGW (UK)

World FM Day conference/ Google London, 28th August 2009

Work-culture and Workplaces around the WorldPhilip Tidd, Managing Director DEGW (UK)

And now for something completely different

The World as we knew it is gone…..Organisations are challenged with…

• staying in business

• saving money

• business responsiveness

whilst at the same time:

• energising culture

• supporting new patterns of live / work

• reducing carbon footprint / sustainability

How has the office changed over time?

The Taylorist OfficeThe consequence of the lateNineteenth Century discovery of‘Scientific Management’

The Social Democratic OfficeThe consequence of Post SecondWorld War social and economicreconstruction

TODAY: the Networked Office The consequence of robust, reliable,ubiquitous early Twentieth FirstCentury Information Technology

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF): DEGW workplace strategy & Design

Seagram Building, New YorkArchitects: Mies van der Rohe & Philip Johnson, 1958

Taylorist

Centraal Beheer, Apeldoorn, The NetherlandsArchitect: Herman Hertzberger, 1974

Social Democratic

copyright © DEGW 2009 Centraal Beheer, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands (1974)

Today: the networked office: the Workplace as a hybrid network of places…

ServiceCenters

Delivery Center

Satellites

Client Site

HUB

Home

Home

Home

Home

Home

Satellites

Satellites

Home Home

Technology changes fast…

enabling the use of space and time in more fluid ways

1954: Prediction:The Home Computer of the Future 2004

2004: Reality: Pervasive, mobile technologies

Yet buildings have not changed…and often remain disconnected from organisational change

1904: The Larkin Building 2005: Roche PD, Welwyn, UK (Architects BDP)1904: The Larkin Building (Frank Lloyd Wright) 2005: Roche PD, Welwyn, UK (Architects BDP)

The distributed workplace

Workplace Innovations @ Philips

Real Estate TrendsFocus on efficiency and

utilization

TechnologyInternet access is nearly

ubiquitous

Pandemics andBusiness Continuity

Insulation from unexpected disruptionDistributedDistributed

WorkWorkProgramsPrograms

Talent,Skills/Demographics

HR's “Squeeze” to Competefor Talent on a Global Basis

GlobalEconomic VolatilityDifficulty forecasting headcount and space

demand

Eco-ResponsibilityGrowing sensitivity toenvironmental impacts

andworkplace sustainability

CompetitiveAdvantage

Leading organisations arealways looking for an edge

Mobility is the norm

Cellular space Open plan Addition of communal

and support spaces –

increasing connectivity

Breaking link between

workstation & individual

Full non-territorial

environment

Staff work in setting most suitable to

activity

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Most workplaces still sit here Government

DCSF, GSA, BBCConsulting Accenture, IBM, E+Y

Technology Microsoft ,Nokia,

Cisco

Financial ServicesCitigroup, Capital

One, Deutsche Bank

Pharma and Industry GSK, Pfizer, Unilever

WORK FROM HOME ON THE MOVE WORK IN CAFE INTERACT WITH COLLEAGUES RELAX

Work patterns: activity and occupancy

35% (9am – 5pm)

60% (9am – 5pm)

Empty

Temporarily Unoccupied

InternationalTransport Hub

SecondaryTown Centre

Business nodes

AccessibleSuburbanLocation

Home

CB D

Corporate centre

Neighbourhood centre

Operations centre

Personal centre

CentralTransport Hub

Mapping distributed work centers across a city

Corporate centre

Neighbourhood centre

Operations centre

Personal centre

….and across multiple locations and shared service centers

CISCO – Telepresence Google, London

Places to Support Virtual and Face to Face Engagement

MOSCOW HQ 2006

AMSTERDAM DAP 2006

Moscow HQ Time Utilisation Survey 2006 Results

Activities in workspaces by Product Division (during core day)

46% 33%

7%

14%

29%

35%

8%

26%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CE (54) CO (60) DAP (38) LIGHT (36) PMS (40)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CE (54) CO (60) DAP (38) LIGHT (36) PMS (40)

Empty

Unoccupied

Not obtainable

Pausing

Individual work

Collaboration

• Moscow’s staffs’ average time at desk over all the PD’s varies by only approximately 14%

• DAP in both Moscow and Amsterdam have similar work patterns

52%

38%

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Moscow HQ Time Utilisation Survey 2006 Results

Activities in workspaces by Product Division (during core day)

Static style. Majority of working time spent at desk or elsewhere in the building

Fairly static work style. High internal mobility and some external mobility, mainly individual work at the desk, some collaboration at workspace.

More externally mobile work style. Less time in the building

Time at desk 60%

Internal Mobility 25%

External Mobility 15% External Mobility

30%


Time at desk 45%

External Mobility 40%

Time at desk 35%


Defining the Right Work Profiles

Anchor Creative Resident Networker Leadership

Resident Mobile Worker

MAIN LANDING AT FLOOR LEVEL

5.3

87

.14

5.38

7.14

5.38 7.14

5.3

87.1

4

PRIMARY CIRCULATION

GOOD DEPTH

FOR

ENCLOSED

OFFICES

14.27

37.1

7

44.70

38.00

33.2

3

14.2

7

14.27

14.2

7

CORE

TRANSIT SPACE

OFFICE SPACE (1753 SQM)

GOOD DEPTH

FOR OPEN AND

FLEXIBLE

SPACES

3.6

0

19.36 SQM

TYPICAL FLOOR ANALYSIS

TEST LAYOUT

BREAK AREA AND PRESENTATION SPACE

Pantry

MULTIFUNCTIONAL, RECONFIGURABLE AREA (like informal meeting, training, project area etc.)

SHARING AREA

SUPPORT STRIP

INFO-FILTER AREA (an intermediate space for real time check of floor activity / booking workplace and ancillary device / information display)…

INFO-FILTER AREA (an intermediate space for real time check of floor activity / booking workplace and ancillary device / information display)…

COPY / FAX AREA

SUPPORT STRIP

OPEN SPACE FOR INDIVIDUAL / COLLABORATIVE WORK

ENCLOSED OFFICES FOR INDIVIDUAL / COLLABORATIVE WORK

ENCLOSED OFFICES FOR INDIVIDUAL / COLLABORATIVE WORK

SHARING AREA


MAIN LANDING AT FLOOR LEVEL



CENTRALIZED STORAGE

CENTRALIZED STORAGE

COPY / FAX AREA

COMPARISON: Traditional/ Innovative (Netherlands)

LAYOUT CAPACITY

+24%

+15%

‘KIT OF PARTS’

FLEXIBLE LAYOUT

133 (INDIVIDUAL WORK IN OPEN SPACE)

28 (COLLABORATIVE WORK IN OPEN SPACE)

10 (INDIVIDUAL WORK IN ENCLOSED OFFICE)

3 SHARING AREA 24 seats

10 BOOTHS (concentrated enclosed work)14 seats

1 TOUCHDOWN AREA 8 seats

2 ENCLOSED MEETING 10 seats

8 INFORMAL MEETING 36 seats

1 PROJECT AREA 8 seats

1 PRESENTATION ROOM 10 seats

1 MULTIFUNCTIONAL (training, conference, events etc.) 22 seats

TRADITIONAL LAYOUT

175 (INDIVIDUAL WORK IN OPEN SPACE)

10 ENCLOSED MEETING 75 seats

WO

RK

SP

AC

EM

EETIN

G S

PA

CE

WO

RK

SP

AC

E

An

cilla

ry

Work

sta

tion

s

MEETIN

G S

PA

CE

175175

7575

217217

8686

NOTE:

The traditional layout has limited means in terms of reconfiguration and effective use of space.

NOTE:

The flexible layout is based on a new way of working concept which improves the effectiveness of space in terms of differentiation and variety of the kit of parts/ worksettings.

Case Studies: Workplaces/ Work-Culture

BBC Worldwide, London




Case Study

Google USA/ Europe

Google, Mountain View (California)

Google, Mountain View (California)

Google, London

Google, London

Google, Amsterdam

Google, Amsterdam

Google, Amsterdam

Google, Munich

Google, Munich

Yahoo, Rolle (Switzerland)




Thank you