Patterns of unplanned social interaction – data collection and analysis

This section describes the method used to establish the profile of social interaction for ‘Law’. Unplanned social interaction sits at the intersection of the two theories that drive the logic of the investigation being conducted by this thesis. An understanding of meso level patterns of social interaction is necessary to develop empirical evidence of the relationships between space and interaction and between interaction and emergent strategy; relationships 1 and 2 in figure 3.1.

Patterns of interaction were quantified through direct observation of the interactions that occurred in a representative sample of spaces and extrapolated to get firm-wide interaction data. Interaction was classified into six categories and summarised in table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Types of interaction studied in ‘Law’

Type of Interaction Who Interacts Coding used for type of

interaction

Planned Intra-departmental PIA

Inter-departmental PIR

Visitor PV

Unplanned Intra-departmental UIA

Inter-departmental UIR

Visitor UV

Each interaction was classified as taking place between inhabitants in two ways: within a department (intra-departmental); and across two or more departments (inter-departmental). Interaction can also take place between inhabitants and at least one visitor to the organisation. These three categories of interaction aim to capture the breadth of interaction within the organisation studied. Intra-departmental interaction is the most narrowly defined form of interaction where individuals interact with their immediate departments only. Inter- departmental interaction describes a broader form of interaction but still within the organisation. For the purposes of this research, the organisation was considered a single social network so both intra and inter-departmental were considered interaction within a single network. Visitor interaction describes the broadest form of interaction and, because it involves people outside of the organisation, is considered to be interaction that spans more than one network. For example, interactions with clients, consultants or even researchers constitute visitor interaction across multiple networks. In addition, all interactions were identified as being either planned or unplanned. Planned interaction was defined as any interaction that was agreed in advance of it taking place. For example, any meeting for which attendees were invited and a venue booked. Unplanned interaction was defined as any interaction that occurred without an agreement for it to take place before it occurred. For

example, bumping into someone in a corridor or an impromptu discussion at a desk cluster. Very short duration interaction of under ten seconds, such as a simple exchange of pleasantries, were excluded. An interaction that started as unplanned would be classified as unplanned for the duration of the interaction even if the participants decided to move to a different space to continue with the interaction. However, if there was a gap in time between agreeing to move a discussion to another space and the continuance of that interaction, the second interaction would be classified as planned. For each interaction, data was also recorded for frequency and duration.

The interaction data was gathered in the same observation sessions described in the previous section. This resulted in a data set of 453 unique interactions. With three items of data recorded for each interaction observed (who interacted, the frequency of interaction and the duration of interaction), this produced a unique set of 1,359 data points that is used to describe the profile of interaction across the organization.

Each observation session focussed on a specific type of space. To do this the organisation was divided into nine spatial categories listed in table 3.7. For each spatial category it was necessary to gather representative interaction data. To ensure the data gathered was representative each spatial category was observed, and data gathered, multiple times. Each observation session would typically last four to five hours and tended to be in either the morning or the afternoon.

Table 3.7: The nine spatial categories in ‘Law’

Spatial Category Coding used for each spatial

category Type of Space

Workstation WS Workspace

Breakout Area BO Flexible Facility

Atrium AT Flexible Facility

Client Meeting Room CMR Bookable Facility

Area of Transit TR Area of Transit

Glass Room GR Bookable Facility

Training Room TRAIN Bookable Facility

Boardroom BR Bookable Facility

Kitchen KI Flexible Facility

Where a spatial category consisted of just one space, such as the breakout area or the Atrium the space was observed a sufficient number of times for the data gathered to be representative. For example, the interaction patterns in the breakout space showed more consistency than the Atrium. As a result, the Atrium was observed in seven separate sessions and the breakout area on five separate occasions. For spatial categories that had multiple locations, such as the workstations or areas of transit, the spatial category was split into representative spatial groups and each observed separately. For example, areas of transit were subdivided into nine separate, but observable, areas such as ‘back door entrance’ or ‘top stair front’. The fifty-four separate observation sessions conducted are listed in table 3.8.

Table 3.8: List of observation sessions conducted in ‘Law’

Spatial Category Group Observed No. of observation

sessions

Atrium Atrium 7

Breakout Area Breakout Area 5

Boardroom Boardroom 2

Client Meeting Rooms Client Meeting Rooms Left 5

Client Meeting Rooms Right 6

Sub-total: Client Meeting

Rooms 11

Glass Room Glass Room 3

Kitchens Kitchen by CMR’s 1

Kitchen by accounts 1

Sub-total Kitchens 2

Areas of Transit DC Cluster 1

Farside Cluster 1

HMV Cluster 2

Management Cluster 2

Top floor transit 1

Back door entrance 1

Top stair front 1

Top stair rear 1

Sub-total areas of transit 13

Training Room Training Room 3

Workstations DC Cluster 1

Far side Cluster 1

HMV Cluster 2

Management Cluster 2

Temporary project team 2

Sub-total Workstations 8

Total No. of Observation

Sessions 54

The observation of these spaces was made possible by the open and free access to the entire organisation granted to the researcher. The researcher was able to occupy any desk in the office that was not actively being used. Typically, during observation sessions the researcher would open a laptop on the desk and have the observation sheets used to record the data next to the laptop. Within a few weeks of arrival at the firm employees became used to the presence of the researcher who was able to move around the office freely and occupy different desks. Figure 3.12 shows a typical location used during the observation sessions.

This position allowed the researcher to observe several separate spaces so could be used repeatedly. In the example shown in figure 3.12, the breakout area, several desk clusters, the glass room and some areas of transit could be observed. Only one space was observed at a time because the interaction data collected, and the interaction frequency, was too dense to allow multiple spaces to be observed at the same time.

Figure 3.12: Typical position of researcher during observation sessions

Source: Annotated detail of the floor plan of ‘Law’ from depthmapX software The interaction data was recorded on pre-printed sheets designed to capture the data required, a sample is shown in figure 3.13.

Typical location of researcher during observation sessions Breakout Area Glass Room

Note: Actual names and other descriptions that might identify the organisation have been redacted.

Once gathered, the data from the observation sessions was transcribed into a spreadsheet in preparation for further analysis. A sample of the transcribed data is shown in figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14: Raw quantitative data on interaction from ‘Law’

In total, there were twenty-seven desk clusters in the offices of ‘Law’. To arrive at a total figure for interaction at workstations the data collected needed to be extrapolated. It was not assumed that all desk clusters would encourage interaction in exactly the same way because the physical set up of the desk clusters varied to some degree. There were three key differences that needed to be observed separately. The first was that some workstations had dividing screens whilst others did not. The second related to their position within the office. The first floor of the office was split into two by the stairs, landing and lifts used to access the floor. One side of this divide contained three spaces that could be used for interaction away from the desk, the breakout area, the glass room and the training room. The other side had no such facilities. Thirdly, two of the desk clusters had different make-ups to the others, one contained three members of the senior management team, the other a temporary project team. As a result, five desk cluster types were observed in order to gain a representative sample of interaction at desks that could be extrapolated across the organisation. These desk cluster types were listed in table 3.8 and described in more detail in table 3.9.

Table 3.9: Types of desk cluster used for extrapolation across the office

Desk Cluster Type Desk Cluster Observed No of desk clusters of this

type in the firm

Desk clusters with dividing screen in larger section of the open plan office located near the glass room and breakout space

DC Cluster 10

Desk clusters without

dividing screen HMV Cluster 7

Management Cluster Management Cluster 1

Desk clusters with dividing screen in smaller section of the open plan office with no glass room or breakout space

Far side Cluster 9

Desk cluster used by a

temporary project team Temporary project team 1

Table 3.9 also shows the number of each type of desk cluster that existed in the firm as a whole. The observations of each type were multiplied up by this factor to get a cumulative interaction profile for the whole firm. The same process was used for areas of transit with the nine ‘types’ listed in table 3.8.

This method provided data representative of interaction across the whole firm that has been called the profile of interaction in this thesis. For each of the nine spatial categories (table 3.7), data was gathered for the frequency and duration of all six interaction types (table 3.6).

The raw data also allowed an analysis of differences in interaction profiles between spaces of the same type. For example, between a desk cluster positioned close to the breakout space and one positioned further away.