Advertisement

Creative Workplace Alchemies: Individual Workspaces and Collaboration Hotspots

  • Peter ScupelliEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Much like creative knowledge work environments, studio-based design education environments are changing rapidly to include: multidisciplinary teams, information technology, geographically distributed teams, and flexible workspaces. Factors such as, architectural space design, furniture choices, technical infrastructure features, acoustics, socio-cultural norms, and privacy and visibility of wall-sized displays support or hinder workers in creative environments. In this chapter, I describe a case study of a graduate design studio at the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University. The studio has four connected spaces: individual workspaces, collaborative spaces, a kitchen and social café area, and a distance-learning classroom. In earlier work, researchers evaluated student satisfaction through fieldwork, pre-post occupancy surveys, and interviews. In this chapter, I analyze a design studio environment through time-lapse photography, Space Syntax analysis, and semi-structured interviews. This research identifies locations where people and teams work and the factors that support collaboration, such as space configuration, wall-sized display affordances, furniture configurations, and support infrastructures. Teams worked more often in locations that were less visible from other locations, provided greater laptop screen and display privacy, had whiteboards, and electrical outlets. Students did individual work throughout the studio-suite regardless of the function assigned to the spaces.

Keywords

Individual Work Social Space Round Table Initiate Interaction Large Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Berkman Faculty Development Fund at Carnegie Mellon University for partially supporting this research; Andrea Fineman, Xiaowei Jiang, Yin Wang for their assistance with field observations, data collection, and time-lapse coding; Chang Liu for her assistance with the Space Syntax analyses; Professor Bruce Hanington, the Director of Graduate Studies, for his support of this research effort; and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions.

References

  1. Allen TJ (1977) Managing the flow of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen TJ, Henn G (2007) The organization and architecture of innovation: managing the flow of technology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton J (1975) The experience of landscape. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker RG (1968) Ecological psychology. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty M (2001) Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environ Plan B 28(1):123–150MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benedikt ML (1979) To take hold of space: isovists and isovists fields. Environ Plan B 6:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bier H, De Jong A, Van Der Hoorn G, Brouwers N, Heule M, Van Maaren H (2008, Jan) Prototypes for automated architectural 3D-layout. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on virtual systems and multimedia, Springer, Berlin, pp 203–214Google Scholar
  8. Brown T, Kātz B (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi YK (1999) The morphology of exploration and encounter in museum layouts. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 26(2):241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalton N, Marshall P, Dalton R (2013) Extending architectural theories of space syntax to understand the effect of environment on the salience of situated displays. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international symposium on pervasive displays, ACM, Mountain View, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  11. Doorley S, Witthoft S (2012) Make space: how to set the stage for creative collaboration. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. Festinger L, Schacter S, Back K (1950) Social pressures in informal groups: a study of human factors in housing. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  13. Flemming U, Baykan CA, Coyne RF, Fox MS (1992) Hierarchical generate-and-test vs constraint-directed search. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 817–838Google Scholar
  14. Georgoulas C, Linner T, Bock T (2014) Towards a vision controlled robotic home environment. Autom Constr 39:106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin C, Goodwin MH (1996) Seeing as a situated activity: formulating planes. In: Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman E (1963) Behavior in public places; notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press of Glencoe, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Green KE, Walker ID, Gugerty LJ, Witte JC, Houayek H, Kwoka M, Johnson J, Teja K Kuntzi N (2009) AWE: a robotic wall and reconfigurable desk supporting working life in a digital society. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009 (IROS 2009), pp 406–407Google Scholar
  18. Haq S (2003) Investigating the syntax line: configurational properties and cognitive correlates. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 30(6):841–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatch MJ (1987) Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and develop-ment firms. Adm Sci Q 32:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkey K, Kellar M, Reilly D, Whalen T, Inkpen KM (2005) The proximity factor: impact of distance on co-located collaboration. In: Proceedings of GROUP ’05. ACM Press, New York, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  21. Hazlewood WR, Dalton N, Marshall P, Rogers Y, Hertrich S (2010) Bricolage and consultation: addressing new design challenges when building large-scale installations. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 380–389Google Scholar
  22. Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillier B, Penn A (1991) Visible colleges: structure and randomness in the place of discovery. Sci Context 4(01):23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillier B, Hanson J, Peponis J (1984) What do we mean by building function? In: Powell JA, Cooper I, Lera S (eds) Designing for building utilisation. E & F.N. Spon Ltd, London, pp 61–72Google Scholar
  26. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J (1993) Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 20(1):29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang EM (2007) When does the public look at public displays? In Companion proceedings of the conference on Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp 2007, Innsbruck, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang EM, Koster A, Borcher J (2008) Overcoming assumptions and uncovering practices: when does the public really look at public displays?. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5013, Pervasive 2008, Springer Link, Sydney, pp 228–243Google Scholar
  29. Kaarlela-Tuomaala A, Helenius R, Keskinen E, Hongisto V (2009) Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 52(11):1423–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koppel MT, Bailly G, Müller J, Walter R (2012) Chained displays: configurations of public displays can be used to influence actor-, audience-, and passer-by behavior. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012. ACM, Austin, pp 317–326Google Scholar
  31. Koch A, Schewennsen K, Dutton T, Smith D (2002) Redesign of studio culture: a report of the AIAS studio culture taskforce. American Institute of Architecture Students, INC, Washington, DC. Demystified. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraut RE, Fish R, Root R, Chalfonte B (1990) Informal communication in organizations: form, function, and technology. In: Oskamp S, Spacapan S (eds) Human reactions to technology: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 145–199Google Scholar
  33. Olson JS, Teasley S, Covi L, Olson G (2002) The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. Distributed work, 113–135Google Scholar
  34. Peponis J, Zimring C (1996) Designing friendly hospital layouts. The contributions of space-syntax. J Healthc Des 8:109–116Google Scholar
  35. Peponis J, Ross C, Rashid M (1997) The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta. Geoforum 28(3):341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rashid M, Wineman J, Zimring C (2009) Space, behavior, and environmental perception in open-plan offices: a prospective study. Environ Plan B: Plan and Des 36(3):432–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers Y, Rodden T (2003) Configuring spaces and surfaces to support collaborative interactions. In: O’Hara K, Perry M, Churchill E, Russell D (eds) Public and situated displays. Kluwer Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 45–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt K, Bannon L (1992) Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. J Comput Supported Coop Work 1(1):7–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt C, Muller J, Bailly G (2013) Screenfinity: extending the perception area of content on very large public displays. In: Proceedings of CHI2013. ACM, Paris, pp 1719–1728Google Scholar
  40. Scoppa MD, Peponis J (2015) Distributed attraction: the effects of street network connectivity upon the distribution of retail frontage in the City of Buenos Aires. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 42(2):354–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scupelli P, Hanington B (2014) An evidence-based design approach for function, usability, emotion, and pleasure in studio redesign. In: Lim Y-K, Niedderer K, Redström J, Stolterman E, Valtonen A (eds) Proceedings of DRS 2014: design’s big debates. Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  42. Scupelli P, Kiesler S, Fussell SR (2007) Using isovist views to study placement of large displays in natural settings. In: CHI’07, ACM, San Jose, pp 2645–2650Google Scholar
  43. Scupelli P, Xiao Y, Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Gross MD (2010, April) Supporting coordination in surgical suites: physical aspects of common information spaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1777–1786Google Scholar
  44. Sommer R (1969) Personal space: the behavioral basis of design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  45. Sproewitz A, Billard A, Dillenbourg P, Ijspeert AJ (2009) Roombots-mechanical design of self-reconfiguring modular robots for adaptive furniture. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2009 (ICRA’09), 4259–4264Google Scholar
  46. Su R, Bailey B (2005) Towards guidelines for positioning large displays in interactive workspaces. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2005, LNCS 3585, 337–349Google Scholar
  47. Suchman L (1997) Centers of coordination: a case and some themes. In: Resnick L, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C (eds) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays on situated cognition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner A (2001) Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international space syntax symposium, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner A, Doxa M, O’sullivan D, Penn A (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environ Plan B 28(1):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Underhill P (1999) Why we buy: the science of shopping. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Varoudis T, Dalton S, Alexiou K, Zamenopoulos T (2011) Ambient displays: influencing movement pat-terns. In: CHI’11. ACM, Vancouver, pp 1225–1230Google Scholar
  52. Wigdor D, Shen C, Forlines C, Balakrishnan R (2006) Effects of display position and control space orientation on user preference and performance. In: Proceedings of CHI2006, ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Whittaker S, Schwarz H (1999) Meetings of the board: the impact of scheduling medium on long term group coordination in software development. Comput Supported Coop Work (CSCW) 8(3):175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of DesignCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations