Search results

The development of facilities management over the last 20 years is reviewed. A parallel and similarly retrospective view is taken of developments in office design. There is some reason to believe that both movements have been a failure for the same reason – an exaggerated notion of the importance of cost cutting leading to the predominance of supplying side values rather than serving the real interests of increasingly demanding views. More optimistically, it is agreed that, if both facilities managers and designers (including architects) were to give proper attention, in a period of particularly rapid change, to user interests, then considerable and beneficial innovation would become possible.

Office design can be a powerful agent in achieving organisational and cultural change; however, far too often office design is relegated to the side lines by supply side‐thinking in the property and construction industries (including architecture), and by ignorance and over delegation on the part of businesses. A wide gap separates supply and demand. Case studies are used to demonstrate what design has done for a handful of organisations who have been prepared to think strategically about office space in the current turbulent business environment. These case studies demonstrate that, if office space is to be used successfully to achieve business purposes, four essential factors must be in place: visionary leadership; integration of the design of the use of information technology (IT), human resources (HR), and office space; large scale user involvement in the process of change, ie change management; and, finally, systematic data collection to measure the relation between buildings and organisational purpose. With all four factors in place the gap that has been identified can be closed and a powerful managerial resource can be put purposefully to work.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/EUM0000000002112. When citing the article, please cite: Francis Duffy, (1990), “Measuring building performance”, Facilities, Vol. 8 Iss: 5, pp. 17 - 20.

Discusses speculative offices in London, a city where the two major office design traditions are found side‐by‐side. Considers the changing nature of London offices, the British “Anglo‐Saxon” office tradition, the North American office tradition in London, and the European approach where the customer more strongly influences office design. Concludes that London is the most likely place to develop a combination of the European and US approaches, which eliminates the weaknesses of each.

Significant changes in business practice mean that the design of the physical working environment is now being used to add value to business performance. Businesses, stimulated by the potential of information technology and goaded by international competition, are seeing corporate real estate as more than a matter of simply accommodating themselves in the most efficient way. They are using building projects to add value to their core activities. They are using the design process to accelerate programmes of technological and cultural change. Three case studies are used to illustrate the new importance of design. The strategic implication of these experiences are that users, at all levels in business life, having become accustomed to radical changes in the design process, and increasingly used to the responsiveness of ecommerce, are likely to become increasingly impatient with old economy versions of office design, construction, and real estate practice.

One of the least pleasing aspects of the development and estate agency worlds is the belief that a handful of magic numbers will tell you all you need to know about building design. This tendency was very evident after a recent talk given to property people by your editor in which the whole point of the presentation had been to draw attention to the vast number of new and emerging options in office design and location. The question from the floor was, in effect, That's all very well, but what depth should the new office building be?' As if there were one right office building depth, one golden number, which would satisfy all possible tenants, in all possible locations. Whereas, as two writers point out in this month's issue—Paul Stansall on the problems of assessing the occupational capacities of office building (page 4), Francis Duffy on sophisticated space planning techniques (page 7)—questions of design and occupation are complex and interrelated.

Describes some background to the current status of the architectural profession. Argues that it is undergoing drastic reform to meet modern demands on it. Describes the RIBA Strategic Study and examines its implications for facilities managers: the significance of design for both architects and facilities managers in inventing the future of the organizations for which they work; building a knowledge base; and the new level of professionalism which must emerge.

Questions the essential nature of the office building itself in a study, The Responsible Workplace, which criticizes the stereotype found in North America and Northern Europe. Identifies two realities which drive the demand for improvement: more powerful IT and more discriminating users. Lists the changing factors which will influence the design and use of the office buildings of the future: businesses, user expectations, technologies, IT and intelligent buildings, building performance, environmental issues, locations, patterns of office work, and regulatory perspectives. Finally, identifies ten initiatives for innovation which will virtually remake the working environment and invent the cities of the 2000s.