Planning and designing tomorrow’s shared workplace centers presents unique challenges. Shared workplace concepts are evolving. This is the result of changes in workplace wellness requirements, societal, economic, and technology. Shared workplace evolution is causing us to rethink working environments, physical configurations, space requirements, and usage of these facilities.
Even the way we refer to shared workplaces is evolving. Currently, the term “co-work centers” is commonly used. Until recently, I thought a co-work center implied an open office multi-purpose workplace. The term now includes open and enclosed office spaces.
The shared workplace evolution is the result of four generations, simultaneously, using these facilities. The oldest, “Boomers”, were born in 1946. This group now also includes Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z groups who were born in the late 1990’s. Gen Alphas , the next generation, are not far behind. Each of these groups have specific needs and idiosyncrasies. For example: Millennials value community and collaboration with others and work well in open spaces. Gen Z users are more prone to working alone in private enclosed spaces and are driven more by individual performance and compensation.
This multi generational diversity of work habits and lifestyles has also impacted the average 10 year “life cycle” of the shared workplace center. Consider the generational effects on a shared workplace center opening today. During its projected 10 year life, Boomers will disappear, Gen X and millennials will age, and the unknown needs of future generations will follow Gen Z into the workplace. The new shared workplace center will have to be flexible, adaptable, and quickly responsive to accommodate this evolution .
Evolving workplaces will require physical re-configurations and spacial re-purposing during a center’s life cycle. Changes will cause discomfort and disruption . Taken to extremes, this can cause clients to leave the center and result in lost revenue. It is important to build flexibility and adaptability into the initial planning and design process to minimize disruptive change.
One solution is the use of floor to ceiling modular and moveable partition systems in lieu of conventional construction. At first glance, this may appear to be a more expensive option. However, we have tested this solution using one of our sample space plans as a basis. We found that if you consider shorter construction time, floor, ceiling, electrical, technology, and other economic factors, the resulting construction cost difference is less than 4%. Different modular widths should be kept to a minimum, however, to support re-configuration.
Another solution is locating “agility zones” into the initial design of the shared workplace. Agility zones are defined areas where reconfiguration and spacial repurposing can occur. Zones are a combination of conventionally built convertible enclosures and modularly partitioned spaces. They include private enclosures and open plan areas. Forty percent of a shared workplace center’s useable space should be dedicated to agility zones. The remainder of the useable space can include common use spaces such as meeting rooms, cafe’s, client service support areas, and statically constructed enclosed work spaces.
Both approaches support the future shared workplace center’s evolving planning challenges. Future blogs will talk about other solutions affecting space usage, different types of workstations, working environments, and products that support flexibility.
AoPlan'sblog 