October 11, 2017
Traditional department-based office layouts reduce efficiency and collaboration, say bosses
Nearly two thirds (64 percent) of senior executives say their offices are still structured on a traditional departmental basis, despite the fact that the majority of those polled in a recent survey (94 percent) believe project efficiency could increase significantly if they simply re-arranged their office seating plans to promote cross-departmental collaboration between team members. The new report Agile Ways of Working: The Great Leadership Disconnect from digital consultancy, Red Badger, claims that not only do these senior decision makers believe in the promotion of collaboration, but four out of five (81 percent) digital leaders in organisations who were additionally surveyed, strongly believed that an inflexible office layout actively led to delays in launching a product or service into the market or to customers. “Waterfall” ways of working (62 percent) and teams working on multiple projects at once (51 percent) were also among the most cited reason for delays in the past.
August 2, 2017
Whatever you might be told, this is not the Office of the Future
by Mark Eltringham • Comment, Facilities management, Technology, Workplace design
It seems like we don’t have to wait more than a few days at a time before some or other organisation is making its own prognoses about how we will be working in the future, especially at this time of year. The thing these reports about the office of the future all share in common, other than a standardised variant of a title and a common lexicon of agility, empowerment, collaboration and connectivity, is a narrow focus based on several of their key narratives and assumptions. While these are rarely false per se, and often offer some insights of variable worth, they also usually exhibit a desire to look at only one part of the elephant. The more serious reports invariably make excellent points and identify key trends, it has to be said. However, across them there are routine flaws in their thinking that can lead them to make narrow and sometimes incorrect assumptions and so draw similarly flawed conclusions. Here are just a few.
More →