Traditionally, the planning o f office space has been driven primarily by the allocation o f space to individuals, based on their job profiles, com munication needs and other functional requirements. Table 4.1 gives an exam ple o f space allocation by activity functions, with a comparison between solicitors' and accountants' offices. The figures used in this table imply that the w ork activities o f solicitors entail a higher
requirement for privacy than those o f accountants, w ith a larger proportion o f space allocated to cellular office use.
Table 4.1: Space allocation and use functions in two organisation types
S p a c e use ty pes A c c o u n t a n t s ’ off ic e C ity S o l i c i t o r s ’ off ic e
Cellular 3 3-5 0% 65 -7 5 %
Open plan 2 0-5 0% 10-15%
Support space 15-20% 15-20%
Ancillary 5-10% 5%
S o u r c e : D u t ' f \ - & H e n n e y . 1989.
Research has shown that within a given type o f organisation, the allocation criteria com monly relates to the status o f the individual w orker (Langdon & Keighley. 1964; Farbstein, 1975; Duffy, 1992), with a significant difference between the allocation o f space to higher ranking individuals as com pared to lower ranked staff. This is particularly dominant in information intensive organisation types, i.e. office organisations. Space planning at the working group level is organised around individuals who share a similar rank and task and who can therefore occupy the same room (Farbstein. 1975). The allocation o f space at departm ental level however, is typically organised on a floor by floor or zone by zone basis, depending on the size o f the department. Therefore, an organisation's typical space policy statem ent will show activity functions and their corresponding space types, such as m anagem ent functions to be allocated management spaces, clerical functions to be allocated clerical spaces, etc.
The im plementation o f these space allocation policies is usually undertaken through the preparation o f a block diagram showing the spaces which are to be occupied by
the m ajor relationships am ong space budget categories, num ber o f units and sq. ft., it allows quick 'w hat-if tests to determine the optim um fit o f alternative layouts, thus com plem enting spreadsheet analyses o f alternative space budgets". The critical issue which must be resolved at this stage is to mitigate any conflicting interests among groups.
W hen block diagrams have been presented and approved by m anagem ent, the detailed design o f floor layout begins. The decisions on floor layout types should be workable and suitable for both groups and individuals. This requires the full application o f the organisational workplace space standards and that decisions be made on the positioning o f cellular offices, the proportion o f ancillary and support spaces, the selection o f furniture and services and the dem arcation o f prim ary, secondary and tertiary circulation areas. Frequently however, decisions on layout selections are known to depend largely on management preferences and on past experiences (M olnar, 1983:120; W orthington, 1982:216). For example, past m anagem ent practices tend to place ancillary and support spaces in the interior spaces and cellular offices along the corridor, thus creating the single, double or triple zone layout types (Tabor,
1969:2.43)
There are three main types o f layout option: enclosed cellular offices, open plan layouts or office landscaping (Index to Coverage o f Offices. 1964); and the group space type (W orthington, 1982). The variations for these spaces can be classified further; for open plan types, there are regim ented open plans, structured open plans or 'bullpen' plans; and for enclosed spaces - m ulti-occupancy and single-occupancy (Watts, 1994b). However these classifications do not radically change the assignment procedure for individuals and groups. In contrast, innovative layout options, such as universal plans and non-territorial spaces, have direct im plications on allocation 67
procedures. Figure 4.1 shows the conceptual shift in space allocation procedures from the past to the future. This is further illustrated in Table 4.2, w hich shows the full spectrum o f allocation options available, from space assignm ents and space sharing to complete space/location independence. A more com plete list is included in Chapter 6.0.
Figure 4.1: The conceptual shift in space allocation
Past Present Future
change in space configuration c hange in working practice . .. ... multi-venue locations etc. 1 : I Space .Assignment Space Sharing S P A C E P E R P E R S O N A L L O C A T I O N n : 1 Space/Location Independent
Table 4.2: Sum mary policy options for space allocation
Options * Description and influence on managem en t* A llocation p roced ure
1. Function-Based The user's j o b requirements determ ine the a m o u n t and
type o f space and the furniture provided. T his can result in a comple x inventory o f sta ndards and furnishing components associated with each type o f department, group and individual user.
T ypically 1 : 1
2. Status/rank based
The provision o f workspace and furniture is determined by the user's Job level or grade. T he implication o f this approach is that these standards must "move" with the occupant and be upgraded when promotion occurs.
Typically I : 1
3. Universal A workstation o f the same size is provided for all space
users. It results in low churn costs, as people, rather than panels, are moved.
1 : 1 ...> 1 : n
4. Zero based The provision o f workspace and furniture is negotiated
on an individual basis, based on either the space user's needs or stated requirements. Som e orga nisations offer users a choice o f furniture from a range. Sen ior executives often expect this.
1 : 1 ...> n : 1
5,Non-territorial The broad concept is that space and furniture are
viewed as a company asset for individual use but only as and when required. Variants within this type o f policy include:- shared space, hotelling, team base and home base.
1 : n ...> n : 1
S o u r c e : * W a tt s R.. 19 94b .