ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · Spatial Influence on Organizational Creativity: Through syntactic analysis of ... form of communication and group identity is also enhanced

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing association

Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 114

Spatial Influence on Organizational Creativity: Through syntactic analysis of Space

Sumanta Deb, Surabhi Sinha Assistant Professor, School of Management Sciences, BESUS, Bengal

ABSTRACT

The Hawthrone study, though proved otherwise, is regarded as one of the most important study to find out the relationship between physical space and organizational behaviour. After that, the advent of environmental psychology as a discipline augmented the research to find out the relationship between physical space and human behaviour. Space not only accommodates functions and behaviours but also has the potential to influence them. There are various studies regarding the micro, even molar characteristics of space and their subsequent effect on behaviour, but very little on overall spatial structure. This paper approaches to establish the relationship between spatial structure and organizational creativity and communication through syntactic analysis of space. This is done with a study conducted on 50 middle level managers by showing three dimensional models of three types of most common workstation layouts. The results are recorded on psychological factors on a 7 point Likert type scale. Considering ceteris paribus assumption of other ergonomic and anthropometric elements, the relationship of organizational creativity and communication is established with various syntactic characteristics (mean values of psychological factors (privacy, interaction and creativity) and corresponding syntactic values. Influencing and supporting positive employee behaviour is one of the most important functions of organizational development. And as space influences behaviour, proper design of spatial structure should be regarded as one of the most important strategic management decision. The approach can have wide implications in evaluating and designing proper spatial arrangement required for an organization. When the requirements and prioritisation of psychological values for an organization is determined, the subsequent range of syntactical values can be identified from among alternatives and thus act as appraising tool and also a proper tool for briefing to the designer. This study has the potential for spearheading future research in the syntactic analysis of space in influencing employee behaviour in organizations.

Key Words: Organizational creativity, Communication, Space syntax analysis

1. Introduction

Hawthrone study (1920s) is regarded as the first effort to understand the effect of physical environment on employee performance and consequent organizational productivity. It studied the effect of illumination intensity on employee performance at Hawthrone Plant of General Electric Company. Though proved otherwise, it spearheaded research in this particular field. In the initial years, physical environment was considered to be a least important factor on employee performance and motivation. Physical environment, when adverse, was considered as dissatisfier,


but, not on the contrary. So, it was thought of as a hygiene factor, not as a motivator, though, by physical settings, physiological factors of space were considered. Provision of a safe, comfortable, supportive working environment was, thus, identified as essential.The advent of environmental psychology as a discipline in the 1960s widened the scope of research in this area. Human behaviour in office building is very complex. It contains various activities ranging from planned to unplanned, job related to non job related and solo to group activities. People spend one third of their daily time and 15% of their life in office environment. Therefore, office space has an immense potential to influence behaviour as space influences behaviour. Individuals come together into the office environment and become a cohesive social community. Therefore, human behaviour in office building is an interesting area of study. Initially, designing office building was considered as creation of a shell that accommodates functions. Nowadays, it is considered not only as accommodative but influencer of activities, functions and behaviours. A study indicated that, physical design is ranked third important factor contributing to job satisfaction, next only to daily activities and compensation. And in another study, where 2000 employees in multiple levels were surveyed, revealed that a proper physical setting has positive effect on employee productivity. At individual level space can control physiological needs, like, space, light, temperature, sound, indoor air quality, ambient odour, ambient colour, and psychological needs, like, privacy, and personalization. And at group level space can control interaction, cooperation and sharing. Thus, by striking a balance between variables, proper mix for an organization can be achieved, which can be conducive to creativity and development.There are various studies undertaken on micro or molar variables of space. They are mostly on various physiological, ergonomic or anthropometric elements. But, very little has been done on the overall spatial arrangement.

2. Influence of Spatial arrangement on knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing is very important for present day organizations. With the development of knowledge workers and highinvolvement organizations, increasing innovation, promoting creativity at the organizational level and knowledge sharing are of vital importance for organizations these days, and, can be supported by proper spatial arrangements. Space planning is gaining importance and has to align with the overall organizational objectives, and, has to augment the positive organizational behaviour. Proper interaction and communication increases group cohesiveness. Spatial arrangement help individuals come together, and, through interaction and communication form a cohesive community, and subsequently, lead to increase organizational creativity.Knowledge sharing in an organization can take place through some form of communication and group identity is also enhanced by direct interactions. Spatial factors have very strong influence on communication and interactions. Spatial factor mainly influences non scheduled, non planned interactions; formal interactions will anyway take place. Rashid et al (2005) mentioned that, movement and copresence are two important spatial factors responsible for face to face interactions. Face to face interaction is considered to be most direct and easiest route of communication. And also it is the most powerful in coordination and collaboration in the workplace, especially in high involvement organizations, where, extensive interaction is prerequisite for proper functioning. Co presence influences this face to face interaction. Another important interaction is impromptu interaction or serendipitous interaction, which occurs through accidental interaction of coworkers within an organizational setup. This can be achieved when there is movement. Where, copresence is an essential spatial characteristic of intragroup communication, movement influence intergroup communication. Serendipitous interactions


account for a large amount of informal social interaction and networking at work. Even, repeated encounters without conversation reinforce coawareness, and, foster office relationships. Organizations are nowadays trying to increase the likelihood of informal interactions between coworkers. Spatial arrangement in this regard can influence this interaction by enhancing chance encounters and co presence. Spatial arrangement can affect the probability and frequency of interactions. Influencing behaviour is one of the most important strategic Human resource management decisions, therefore, spatial design can be considered on of the important strategic HR Function, as space influences behaviour.So, a good workplace design helps to increase the chance encounters by striking a balance between individual workstation and collaborative spaces. A workplaces’ ability to support distraction free individual work station, and enhanced scope for chance encounters has an effect on individual and team performance, and, ultimately on organizational creativity. This can be achieved by striking a balance between privacy and interaction. Because, for individual thought process, the prerequisite is concentration (privacy) and for group work or collaborative team work is interaction. The respective spatial properties are seclusion and integration. So, it is important to analyse, how the difference in integration and visibility influence interaction and creativity

3. Space Syntax Analysis and Space Syntax Variables

Until now, we have discussed spatial influence on organizational behaviour, and by controlling various psychological variables like, privacy, interaction through spatial design organizational creativity can be augmented. But, measuring the psychological variables is very difficult. Space syntax can be considered as a solution in this regard by providing respective well defined spatial variables. The concept of space syntax was originated as a research method in the 1970s in the University College of London as a way to record interactions and movements in buildings and cities. These two factors, interaction and movement, were previously identified as spatial factors responsible for knowledge sharing in organizations. The term was introduced by Hillier and Hanson in their work: The Social Logic of Space (1984), to establish the relationship between sociology and built environment. The concept of space syntax was initially implemented in urban scale. The interactions and encounters in the built environment are influenced by spatial arrangement and space syntax analysis can be implemented here to analyse behaviours.Space syntax can be defined by space syntax laboratory as: a set of techniques for the analysis of spatial configurations of all kinds, especially where spatial configuration seems to be a significant aspect of human affairs as it is in buildings and cities..There are various methods of conducting space syntax analysis. They can be considered as the language of space, and, are unambiguous quantitative description of spatial variables. The methodology of space syntax conceives a building as a system of spatial arrangement consisting of social units and their corresponding local and global relationships.

3.1 Justified Access Graph Analysis

One method is the graph representation of buildings, as mentioned by Hiller and Hanson by “justified Access Graph”. Here, spatial configuration is represented in terms of nodes and links. Nodes refer to spaces, and links refer to relationships in terms of visibility or permeability. After the graphs are drawn, some numeric measures related to some spatial characteristics should be made. They are as follows:


Total Depth (TD)

Total depth of a node, TD (n), is the total of the shortest distances from node n to all other nodes of the spatial system.

Mean Depth (MD)

MD (n), Mean depth of a node is the average of the depth from node n to all other nodes in the spatial system. If m is the total number of nodes in the system, the, MD (n) =TD (n)/ (m1)

Relative Asymmetry (RA)

The relative asymmetry describes the integration of a node. The range varies from 0 to 1, where a low value signifies higher integration. RA is calculated as, RA= 2(MD1)/ (m2)

Integration Value (i)

The integration value is found by inverting RA, i=1/RA

3.2 Isovist Analysis

Another important space syntax analysis is visual analysis. Isovists are considered important in this regard. An isovist as defined by Benedict is a set of all points visible from a given vantage point in space and with respect to an environment.It provides description as, how users perceive it, interacts with it and moves through it. Isovists is considered as a polygon, constructed by the obstructions with respect to a particular point if 360 0 visibility from that vantage point is considered. It also has several numeric measures, such as:Isovist area and perimeter: coverage and spread of ones visual and aural accessibility. Isovist occlusivity measures, how far one could see as a proxy for how much one could see, and isovist compactness (average distance/ maximum distance), a compact place represent co presence From these quantifiable variables various spatial characteristics can be inferred, like, which place has better integration, which place enjoys better aural/ visual accessibility.As we have mentioned earlier, spatial behaviour is important both at workstation level and collaborative spaces, the analysis at both level with the help of space syntax tools can be done in this regard.

4. Approach

The analysis is done at two levels, as mentioned earlier. First it is done at the workstation level to study intragroup behaviour and spatial influence on them, and then it is done for the entire office space level to study inter group behaviour.

4.1 Study at the Work Station Level:

The study is done on three most commonly used work station layouts as shown in Figure 1.They are of equal area, accommodate equal number of people (24), have equal circulation area and similar in all other aspects (ergonomical and anthropometric factors).


Figure 1: Three Workstation arrangement

First, they are analysed according to “Justified Access Graph” analysis method. For that, nodes and links are identified and presented as justified access graph for all the cases. Then the values of Total depth, Mean depth, Relative Asymmetry and Integration are analysed for each node. Figure 2 shows the Justified Access Graphs of all layouts, corresponding to their Plan views.

Figure 2: Justified Access Graphs of Options


The summary of the Justified Access Graph (JGA) analysis is given in the following table (mean values of variables):

Table 1: Summary of JAGAnalysis of Three layout options

Option TD MD RA i Option 1 75.63 3.6 0.26 4.17 Option 2 91.26 3.14 0.15 6.95 Option 3 76.07 2.81 0.13 7.52

From the RA values, high mean value of option 1 refers to the tendency of the layout to be more segregate, more private. Option two and option 3 are in sequential order of privacy after option 1. From MD value, option 1 appears to be more symmetric, i.e., well connected to the root space, option 3 is less connected to the root space and option 2 falls in between. So, level of integration and segregation can be found out from the justified access graph analysis.

Now, isovist analysis of individual workers for all workstation is done:

Figure 3: Isovists at Workstations for Option 1




Figure 1: Graphs showing Isovists properties: Area, Perimeter, Occlusivity, Compactness, where I (1) denotes type 1 isovist of Option 1 and so on


Various isovist properties corresponding to those isovists mentioned in Fig:3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 are analysed and plotted in the following graphs:

Figure 7: Graph showing mean values of Isovist properties: Area perimeter, Occlusivity and Compactness

From the isovist analysis, it is clear that option 3 enjoys maximum aural accessibility from each work stations. So, this particular spatial arrangement facilitates co presence. Though, employee density is same for all the arrangements, better visual accessibility enhances interaction and face to face communication (sometimes, non verbal), and there by increase informal communication. Option 2 and option 1 are in descending order of visual accessibility after option 3.

Now we analyse junctions of these three arrangements. Normally, junctions are spaces where informal meetings take place. It can be seen that, compactness for option 2 arrangement is highest. So it represents more co presence than other two arrangements. It can also be seen from the isovist analysis of junctions, that, the junction points enjoy greater co presence, but workstations enjoy aural seclusion from there. It can also be seen from the three dimensional images of the interactions of all the three options.


Figure 8: Interaction place of Option 3

Figure 9: Interaction place of option 2

Figure 10: Interaction at the passageway of option 1


Figure 11: Isovists at Junctions, (a) Option 1, (b) Option 1, (c) Option 2, (d) Option 3

Occ l usi v i t y

0. 555

0. 56

0. 565

0. 57

0. 575

0. 58

0. 585

0. 59

0. 595

0.6

opt i on 1 opt i on 2 opt i on 3

Occ l us i v i t y

Figure 12: Graph Showing Occlusivity of Options at junctions

Compactness

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

option 1 opti on 2 option 3

Compactness

Figure 13: Graph Showing Compactness of Options at junctions


4.2 The Survey and interpretation

The survey is done on 50 employees, mostly middle level managers, working in various IT and ITES sector in Kolkata. They were shown the three dimensional models of these three workstations arrangements(shown in Figure 1) and their responses on five psychological variables: privacy, interaction, creativity, cooperation and sharing, recorded in a seven point Likert type scale, where 1 represents “Strongly Disagree” and 7 represent “Strongly Agree”. It was made sure during the survey that the respondents are familiar with these three workstation arrangements. It was also communicated to them that, all other factors like, background colour, table top material, table height, chair height and type, flooring materials and texture, illumination level are same for all the options. They are also represented in the visuals shown to them. In short, it can be said that all other ergonomical and anthropometric factors are same for all the cases. So, the result obtained clearly rule out all other factors and is influenced only by spatial factors. There feedbacks on those psychological factors are recorded for all the three options. Then the mean values of the scores are calculated and presented in the following graph.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

option 1 option 2 option 3

privacy

Interaction

creativity

cooperation

sharing

Figure 14: Mean values of variables for three options

The result shows that, employee perception of a spatial arrangement varies and it is in sync with data obtained from various space syntax variables. Option 2 is perceived as creative (organizational creativity, though for individual creativity option one is regarded as most creative). The reasons are: the layout enjoys intermediate integration value between option 1 and option 3 and visibility characteristics are also midway between the two. From the junction level isovist analysis, it can be said that, option two gives maximum aural seclusion from the central areas and maximum compactness in the centre. So, it can be inferred, that, without changing the shell, considering ceteris paribus assumption, organizational creativity can be enhanced by striking a balance between privacy and interaction.


Figure 15: Development of an Office space

4.3 Study at the overall office level

Here, we can extend the space syntax analysis in the layout of entire organization and see how space syntax variables help in taking decisions. In the work station level the main emphasis area is copresence and intra group relationship. But, within an entire organization setup various functions need to be accommodated. There are hierarchical classifications, and they are provided with various spaces that commensurate with the function. There can be combination of cellular chambers for senior level employees, semi cellular, and open workstation type respectively for the descending order of the hierarchical structure. There are also common facilities located within the area, like, toilets, drinking water facility, coffee/tea/snacks counter, pantry, dining room, meeting rooms(both formal and informal) and various common facilities(printer, photo copier, server, etc, sometimes with enclosure)


Figure 16: Various space syntax analysis of the office plan, (a) Accessibility analysis of Axial line map, (b) Integration value of Axial line map (c) Visual Graph Analysis, (d) Color Code for

reading syntax color code

We have mentioned earlier that, movement is another spatial behaviour that is responsible for knowledge sharing within an organization. Within an entire organization movement can be predicted to certain extent with space syntax analysis. Serendipitous interaction between employees not only enhances chances of informal interaction, but also augments office relationship. Various unscheduled job related interactions take place due to these serendipitous interactions, formal meetings will any way take place. It can also be seen that, areas close to drinking water and coffee vending machines are mostly the spaces for informal interaction, and potential areas for grape vine.


There are always physical constraints for an office building design and there are functional requirements as well. Let us consider one example. In the Fig: 15, the existing space has to be developed. So there is certain constraints in terms of shape, floor area etc. Fig: 15 show the step by step development of the existing plan.

Figure 16 show various space syntax analyses. In Fig 16(a) the width of the red line depicts accessibility, interaction value. Higher the width more is the chances of accessibility and interaction. This can also be supported with Figure 16(b), where integration values of the axial lines are shown. Fig 16(d) shows the colour code for studying those maps, where red denotes maximum integration and blue denotes minimum integration. From the concept of space syntax analysis, it can be said, that, most integrated area gets maximum activity. For this, we can take the analogy of a city, where most integrated areas get maximum activities and are mostly creative areas.

So, that area has the potential to generate maximum serendipitous interactions and that ultimately lead to informal interactions.

5. Practical implications

The space syntax therefore can have various uses in Human Resource practices. It can be used as a tool in selection of alternatives when new facility is required. Normally, evaluation of alternatives is done on the basis of budget. But, for the benefits accrued from that spatial arrangement, long term benefits in terms of employee productivity and organizational creativity are not considered for lack of supporting tools and data. Space syntax variables are quantitative and unambiguous description of spatial properties that influence human behaviour. So, in this regard, those values can be considered as of vital importance.

Another important use can be the rearrangement of people in the workstation, or who should sit where in the workstation layout. Also this tells us about where to locate which functions in the overall organizational structure.

Figure 17: Axial map of space syntax color of an Office Layout


In this figure: 17, the axial line analysis of an office layout, axial lines are shown in terms of space syntax colour. The marked area, thus, as previously discussed has the potential to generate maximum informal interactions. But, as top management is accommodated in the adjacent area; the spontaneous interactions can not take place. When spontaneous spatial behaviour is not supported, it leads to stress. As, we know that knowledge sharing through informal interactions is a positive behaviour, arrangement of supportive functions should be properly aligned.

So, space syntax variables can help in design, redesign of the workplace design and even can be considered as a tool for communicating with the Architects/ Designers of the spatial requirements.

Space syntax analysis can help in conscious choice of the spatial configuration, and take informed decision in this regard.

5.2 Limitations

The approach has certain limitations. Sociocultural factors and even the organizational culture play a role in the spatial behaviour of individuals and thereby affecting the conception of psychological variables.

In this paper we have considered only the interior of the office space, where location of the building, location of the office within the building, building exterior, natural and geographical setting has effect on employee behaviour. The area demands more attention and multidisciplinary research in this field.

This particular approach considers office space in one plane only. Further analysis for multilevel spatial arrangement will illuminate more complex spatial behaviours.

5.3 Conclusion

Space has immense potential in moulding human behaviour and space syntax analysis is a tool for analysing those behaviours. Influencing behaviours is central to Human resource practice and, as space influences behaviour, informed decisions on spatial arrangement are vital. Space Syntax analysis act as an aid in decision making. It should be noted that it is an aid in decision making and not an end in itself.

6. References

1. Maslow, A.H; (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review, 50, pp 370396

2. Herzberg, F.; (1972), “Work and the Nature of Man”, Staples Press, London, UK

3. ASID, (1999), “Recruiting and Retaining Qualified Employees by Design”, American Society of Interior Designers


4. Huges, J.; (2007, July), “Office Design is Pivotal to Employee Productivity”, Sandiego Source the daily Transcript

5. Wyon, D.P.; (1996), “ Indoor Environmental Effect on Productivity”, In Proc. IAQ’ 96, “Paths to Better building Environments”, ASHARE, Atlanta, pp 515

6. Fisk, W.J.; (2002), “How IEQ affects Health, Productivity”, ASHARE Journal, 44(5), pp 5660

7. Wargocki, P; D.P. Wyon; Sumdell, G; Clausen and O.P. Famger.; (2000), “The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, Sick Building Syndrome(SBS) symptoms and productivity”, Indoor Air, 10(4), pp 222236

8. Teeni, D. (2006), “Organizational Communication”, in Encyclopaedia of Knowledge Management, Ed. Schwartz, D.G., pp 734740, USA: idea Group Reference

9. Rashid, M.; Zimring, C; Wineman, J.; Flanigam, T.; Nubani, L and Hammash, R. (2005), “The effects of Spatial behaviors and layout attribute on individual perception of psychological constructs in office”, in proceedings of the 5 th Space Syntax Symposium, ed. Nes, A. van, pp 7188, Amsterdam, Techne press

10. Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984), “The Social logic of Space”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

11. http://www.spacesyntax.org/introduction/index.asp

12. Franz, G., Heyde, M. Vander and Bulthoff, H. H. (2005), “Predicting Experiential Qualities of Architecture by its Spatial properties”, in Designing social innovation: Planning, Building; Proceedings IAPS 18; eds, Martens, b and keul, A. G., pp 157166, Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe + Huber Publishers

13. Benedikt, M.L.(1979), “ To take hold of Space: isovists and isovist fields”, Environment and Planning, B6, pp 4765

14. Turner, A.; Doxa, M.; O Sullivan, D. And Penn, A. (2001), “ From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of Architectural space”, Environment and Planning, B 28, pp 103121

15. Hillier, B. & Tzortzi, K. (2006), “ Space Syntax: the language of Museum Space”, in S. Macdonald(Ed), A companion to Museum Studies, Oxford: Blackwell Publications

Documents

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · Spatial Influence on Organizational Creativity: Through syntactic analysis of ... form of communication and group identity is also enhanced