---

Visitors to Clerkenwell Design Week found themselves taking part in a series of scientific experiments aimed at examining at workspace design and management. The results point to seismic possibilities.

---

Report by Dr Craig Knight

The intelligent office:
A crucible of business generation
The background:
Peer-reviewed scientific research into workspace design and management revealed two robust, consistent and sizeable pieces of evidence. First, a lean Spartan office is a psychologically uncomfortable and uneconomic space in which to expect people to work. Compared to other forms of office design and management these controlled environments consistently produce poor results in terms of both well-being and productivity. Second, implementing a high-design-enriched space is good practice, but it is not best practice. Workers developing their own space and allowed to realise their own identity - rather than work under an identity manufactured for them by the organisation - are consistently happier, more in control and more productive than people in design led spaces.

Provider of bespoke office furniture and storage solutions Frem UK, which runs a pretty lean ship itself, hosted a scientific study over the three days of Clerkenwell Design Week last May. Sixty-three people took part in nine separate experiments and, while the results were consistent with published scientific data, they also broke new ground, pointing to seismic possibilities.

In short, unnoticed psychological changes influenced whether clients thought more (or less) highly of their supplier, and were more (or less) likely to buy their products. Meanwhile, identical manipulations affected cognitive performance so that people were effectively more (or less) intelligent in the same work space while attempting the same task. The consequences for business are clear.

The Frem study: Clerkenwell Design Week 2014
Working with 63 participants allowed us [research firm Identity Redalization Limited] to iron out many individual differences and explore data trends for future expansion. We ran two measures:

Objective measure. This was a straightforward test of intellectual performance based on the game Dingbats. People were presented with a series of pictures which represented a word or well-known phrase as shown in Figure 1. In three minutes, participants had to complete as many Dingbats as possible.

Subjective measure. We also ran a short business-based questionnaire. This had seven questions that we were able to collapse into two scales.Scales are developed to maximise the likelihood that we are measuring what we intend to measure. This simultaneously minimises the chance of accepting misleading data or of over-emphasising individual items. Good scales provide us with surer statistical ground and the reassurance that our measurements are meaningful.

The two scales developed from the Frem questionnaire were:

a) A business-perception scale measured what potential clients thought of Frem while they were visiting the Design Week (four items: typical item 'the seminar I attended was useful), and

b) A business transaction scale measured how likely a client was to conduct business with Frem (three items: typical item 'I would like to specify Frem').

Conditions. Whether completing the objective or the subjective elements of the study, participants found themselves in one of three conditions:

1 Lean. This was our control condition. Participants here completed their questionnaire and undertook the Dingbats in the standard Frem showroom. Frem tends to keep a clean and lean environment with no ephemeral decoration. Frem does this to increase emphasis on its office products.

2 Enriched. Potted and cut plants were added to the existing Frem space placed where the company thought they looked best. Apart from these plants no other changes were made.

3 Identity realised. On this occasion participants were invited to decorate the space themselves using exactly the same plants found in the enriched condition. This allowed participants to realise some element of their identity within their space.

Results
Plants aside, the space used in conditions 1, 2 and 3 was identical for everybody. Within their conditions the participants performed the same tasks; namely (a) the objective Dingbat game to assess effective intelligence and (b) the subjective assessment of Frem's commercial acumen appraised via a questionnaire. The results are shown in Figure 2.

The productivity conundrum
You may well be asking 'What does this prove? There were only 63 people' or 'What has a game of Dingbats have to do with serious office work?' These are good points answered very shortly (below).

First, try to answer this question. How do you objectively measure productivity in an HR department (or in the boardroom, or in accounts and so on)? Now consider how ubiquitously we are urged to increase productivity. You may now have an inkling of the enormous void between our intention to measure productivity and our inability to do so. The result is often abysmal office space.

Consequently, for some 10 years we have researched productivity and its objective measurement. Figure 3 summarises these findings along with concomitant figures for well-being and sick-office syndrome. In short people feel better, think the environment is better and perform better (a) when working in an enriched space. Productivity increases still further (b) when the space reflects the identities of its occupants rather than its designers or managers. These differences are both significant and substantial.

Moving ahead with the 63
The research at Frem mirrors the published, peer-reviewed findings of the past 10 years. Hence a cohort of 63 becomes the vanguard for the next stage of research. People's perceptions of an environment are seen to change when the space is psychologically manipulated. People feel healthier and happier in their work. They are also more effective. These differences have been seen to persist - without degradation - over time.

It now seems probable that the same manipulations can influence clients' predilections for - and decisions to buy from - a given provider.

 

Improving intelligence at work
Published research with older adults suggests that giving people influence over their environment increases their cognitive engagement. When asked to perform a mental assessment exercise in (a) an enriched space and (b) an identity realised space, intelligence scores increased by 19 per cent. The Frem study achieved similar results in a working environment. There was a performance increase across the same conditions of 15 per cent and an increase from the lean condition to identity-realised of 38 per cent.

What is currently called the intelligent office is a syntactical misnomer that refers to a space capable of supporting more than one function to a greater or lesser extent. There is no scientific evidence that using the same footplate to accommodate increasing numbers of workers improves their effectiveness (rather the reverse). It now appears possible to create a genuinely intelligent office. A space where people will, on average, be cleverer than they would elsewhere. The implications are obvious and extend beyond the workspace.

Scientific reintegration of design as a crucial variable
Let us be clear here. A conscientious designer, who produces N revisions after X consultations, is working suboptimally. This is a facilitating process that collates different inputs that inform the designer's interpretation of a workspace. It is this design-led approach - a potentially good approach - that research shows as an obstruction to scientific best practice. Best practice is an environment developed by the people who work there. Yet it does not seem logical that the ultimate space is one designed by amateurs - albeit informed amateurs - with so much design talent available. Something seems to be missing.

Therefore, working from a social identity perspective, we are investigating a led design process. The result should be a space that is psychologically owned by the staff but informed by submissive design. Hypothetically, this will lead to the development of an environment that is more satisfying and effective than anything commonly available. There is a strong risk of treading on egos here, but we may also find a scientifically demonstrable role for good design at the heart of maximising - not just improving - workplace well - being and performance.

Call to arms
In line with our work to date, this pioneering Frem study now needs to run in a large-scale workspace. We will develop intelligence measures relevant to the work at hand and objective measures that will include creativity. There is a great risk that any partner in this research will gain a sizeable advantage in terms of PR, aesthetic, kudos and - most importantly - increased revenue.