Contract - March 2010 - (Page 69)

an MIT blue ribbon panel on American productivity, summed up the situation this way: â€œIf someone landed from Mars or, more to the point, from Tokyo, heâ€™d conclude that the computer has had essentially no impact on our white-collar productivity [Fortune, September 28, 1987, p. 62].â€ Anecdotal evidence garnered from survey research conducted by BOSTI, Steelcase, and others notwithstanding, the same can certainly be said for systems furniture and â€œnewâ€ approaches to office design. This doesnâ€™t mean, of course, that people shouldnâ€™t expect to work in safe, supportive environments, or that they wonâ€™t be more satisfiedâ€”and perhaps even work a bit harderâ€”if they have non-glare task lightingâ€¦, a pleasant view, an operable window, a closeable door, individualized control over air flow and temperature, more space to spread out, and an ergonomically designed chair. However, this again misses the essential point. This is one of those all too frequent instances where corporate America and its designers, with all good intentions, are trying to solve the wrong problem. The knowledge machine Just as the sun looks as if it revolves around the earth, the office often looks like a factory. In fact, parts of some officesâ€¦even function like the â€œpaper millsâ€ that they really are. However, when it comes to what most of us think of as â€œoffice workâ€â€¦ we need something that will help us gain enough perspective to see the office for what it really isâ€”how it really works. We are all familiar with the concept of analogyâ€”a form of logical inference in which it is assumed that if two things are alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects. Used properly, analogy can be a powerful problemsolving tool. For example, the story is told that Henry Ford got the idea for the automobile assembly line by watching beef carcasses being pushed along an overhead rail in a meat packing plant while individual butchers performed specialized operations as each carcass passed by their work stationsâ€”just as â€œModel Tsâ€ were later pushed from station to station along overhead rails in Fordâ€™s first assembly plants. Whether this story is apocryphal or not, it clearly illustrates the intellectual power of analogy. Imperfectly drawn, however, analogies can be problematic and, when it comes to an issue as important as maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage in a rapidly changing world, even downright dangerous. For example, with the development of robotics and concepts like computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM), a traditional assembly line is probably the least costeffective way to produce cars today. Nevertheless, breaking out of traditional ways of thinking about the process of building carsâ€¦continues to be on of the biggest competitive stumbling blocks facing American automobile manufacturers. When it comes to addressing the â€œproblemâ€ of office productivity, exactly the same thing is happening today in the officeâ€¦.The office-asinformation factory analogy has led management to adopt a mechanistic way of thinking about the office, both as a physical entity and as a process. Many companies even have gone so far as to try to measure â€œoffice productivityâ€ in the same way it has historically been measured on the farm and in the factoryâ€”in terms of the efficiency with which inputs are converted into outputsâ€”leading to such absurdities as multibillion dollar corporations worrying about counting the keystrokes of individual word processing operators. It is true that offices, like factories, have floors, walls, and ceilings. But here the similarity ends. While we can talk about the â€œflowâ€ of office work and the â€œproductivityâ€ of office workers, the office is not an â€œinformation factory.â€ In fact, the office is not a factory of any sort. This helps to explain why productivity improvement strategies that have worked so amazingly well in the fields and on the shop floor have largely failed to live up to managementâ€™s expectations when transferred into the office. Clearly, we have lost sight of the purpose of the officeâ€¦.. The office wasnâ€™t invented to fulfill some deeply felt social needâ€¦. The purpose of the office is not to produce what we normally think of as â€œinformationâ€â€”the memos, letters, management reports, etc., that pile up on our desks. Rather, it is to create knowledge, which allows us to get along in a hostile and (more often than not) contradictory world. This is the purpose of the human mind. As an extension of the human mind, it is also the purpose of the office. The distinction between information and knowledge is not a trivial oneâ€”something that Francis Bacon knew very well when he observed, in Meditationes Sacrae (1957), that â€œknowledge is power.â€ Information, rather than being something tangible that can be â€œmanaged,â€ is simply what chemists would call an â€œintermediate productâ€ in the intellectual process we call information processing. It is an intellectual experience, based on the interpretation of sensory data (sights, sounds, smells, etc.), which answers some immediate question about the world we live in. Our day-to-day survival as a species depends on how efficiently we process data from the environment. Likewise, it is in the management of the process of information processingâ€”both at the individual level and, equally important, at the organizational levelâ€”that companies will find the key to increased competitiveness, not in the management of artifacts of the process. Nevertheless, it is in the management of artifacts that most companies are spending the bulk of their technology dollars today. However, in a world in which intellectual agility counts for much more than physical prowess, companies must learn to manage what is essentially an intellectual rather than a production process. This will be a difficult challenge to meet. Not only will it require a totally different set of management skills than that which exists in todayâ€™s executive ranksâ€¦but it will very likely mean the demise of the office as we have come to know and love it. Why? Because, as companies are inextricably drawn into the vortex of what Harvard sociology professor David Bell has dubbed the â€œpostindustrialâ€ society, competitive pressures will force management to askâ€”and answerâ€”what is www.contractdesign.com contract march 2010 69 http://www.contractdesign.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Contract - March 2010

Contract 3/10
Contents
Editor’s Note
Introduction
Resources
Perspectives
Essays from the Past:
The Contract Design Dilemma (May 1962)
Space Planning Symposium (July 1963)
Changes in Workplaces Reflect Changes in Task Structure (June 1970)
Women Need Feminine Desks (June 1970)
Name “Interior Designer” Is a Misnomer Because of Broader Duties (August 1970)
Research Reveals Proper Height, Width, Depth of Furniture, from Office Chairs to Library Tables (September 1970)
Astounding Technology Portends Drastic Office Changes in the ’80s (January 1980)
Is the Office Really Necessary? (January 1989)
If You Cut Your Fee, Do You Bleed? (June 1990)
Design: Retrospective
Essays on the Future:
More Happiness, Less Stuff: By Ray C. Anderson
The Social Aspect of Social Responsibility: By John Cary
Leading in the Global Market: By Ross Donaldson
Technology Trends: By Cathryn Barrett
Inadmissible Evidence: By Michael Berens
Practice
Designers Rate: Eight Designers Pick Their Favorite Three Commercial Interiors Products of the Last 50 Years
Ad Index

Contract - March 2010