Collaborative knowledge work environments

Heerwagen, J H; Kampschroer, K; Powell, K M and Loftness, V (2004) Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32(6), pp. 510-528. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

How can the physical design of the workplace enhance collaborations without compromising an individual's productivity? The body of research on the links between physical space and collaboration in knowledge work settings is reviewed. Collaboration is viewed as a system of behaviours that includes both social and solitary work. The social aspects of collaboration are discussed in terms of three dimensions: awareness, brief interaction and collaboration (working together). Current knowledge on the links between space and the social as well as individual aspects of collaborative work is reviewed. The central conflict of collaboration is considered: how to design effectively to provide a balance between the need to interact and the need to work effectively by oneself. The body of literature shows that features and attributes of space can be manipulated to increase awareness, interaction and collaboration. However, doing so frequently has negative impacts on individual work as a result of increases in noise distractions and interruptions to on-going work. The effects are most harmful for individual tasks requiring complex and focused mental work. The negative effects are compounded by a workplace that increasingly suffers from cognitive overload brought on by time stress, increased workload and multitasking.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: cognitive overload; collaboration; evidence-based design; individual effectiveness; interaction; knowledge work; office awareness; workplace awareness; workplace design
Index terms: work environment, interaction, workplace design, dimension, productivity, workload, social aspect, effectiveness, evidence-based design, collaboration
Subjects: management, sociology, health monitoring assessment and metrics, design practice, performance management, design methods, behavioral psychology
Topics: Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Design Practice, Human Resources, Research Practice, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here