By Margaret Gilchrist Serrato, Ph.D., AIA, LEED

The purpose of this study is to record systematically the location and occurrence of informal, unscheduled communications among scientists and link those to building configuration variables of distance and integration. The findings of this study will inform a broader understanding of building configuration types and their relationship to patterns of circulation and communication.

Previous Approaches to the Problem

In his study on knowledge gathering and technology transfer among scientists, MIT professor Thomas Allen found that a building's interior traffic pattern affects communication among scientists both by promoting chance encounters and by facilitating the accomplishment of planned contacts (Allen, 1977). He demonstrated that the probability that two scientists will regularly communicate declines rapidly as the distance between their work locations increases (1977, page 240). Allen continued to find these results in subsequent studies (1997), and by examining measures of productivity, also confirmed the relationship between communication and performance, which had been demonstrated earlier by Shilling and Bernard (1964), and Pelz and Andrews (1966). In a similar study of technical professionals, Kraut, Egido and Galegher (1990) determined that physical proximity supports frequent "opportunistic" conversations, a type of informal communication necessary to idea generation (page 116). While these studies all suggest that some aspect of layout, such as distance can predict the quantity of communication, they are only of limited utility in understanding the role of other layout issues of building configuration, such as circulation. More recent studies, such as that by Spiliopoulou and Penn (1999) employ space syntax analysis to demonstrate that not only distance, but also location near highly traveled paths, affects email and face-to-face communication frequency among workers in a corporate image management (public relations) organization. The approach taken in this project is to collect and analyze informal communication data in light of multiple building configuration variables.

Value of the Study

The value of this study is twofold. First, it demonstrates a systematic and precise method for collecting communication and building configuration data (see Methods). Second, it provides a framework for investigating the relationship between overall building configuration, circulation, and communication. The study is relevant in that it provides an opportunity to examine communication patterns in a discipline (research science) for which communication has been determined to be critical to performance and productivity (Allen, 1977; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Shilling and Bernard, 1964).

Project Overview

This research project examined the communication patterns and physical setting of scientists at two R&D organizations in Atlanta, Georgia during an eight-week period. To enhance the effort, two laboratory buildings were selected with markedly different layout strategies, but whose scientists were engaged in similar tasks. Specifically the two labs reflect differences in the way which organizational decisions were made about the location of team leaders to team members, and the location of different teams to each other. Communication data was collected from scientists at each laboratory using a random paging system to which participants responded immediately by recording their location, activity, and status. The communication data was compared to various physical measures of spatial layout including distance, integration, and connectivity. A building configuration typology was developed based on a survey of recently design laboratory buildings. The findings of the data comparing communication and configuration variables between research sites is presented, and the study concludes with a discussion of how different laboratory building configurations might be associated with different communication patterns.

COMMUNICATION

The importance of understanding and enhancing communication is axiomatic in organizational literature, and the business world. The objective of the entire discipline of organizational science is to help companies implement ways to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency through better communication. To that end, organizational researchers spend considerable resources identifying, categorizing and quantifying complex communication behaviors that occur in organizations. Efforts towards improving workplace communications generally comprise refining interpersonal, presentation, meeting management, interviewing, and negotiating skills. Other strategies to improve workplace communication involve enhancing telecommunication systems, such as wireless communication, integrated messaging, and company-wide intranets.

Communication theory from the management perspective rarely considers how issues of office layout, such as distance, density, and overall layout of the organization, are related to communication. A common workplace layout paradigm is that "organizational structure determines physical structure, which determines communication behavior" (Rogers and Agarwala-Rogers, 1976 p.102). The introduction of "office landscaping" in the 1960s was the first notable attempt to affect communication by arranging offices to correspond to workflow, rather than organizational hierarchy. The early office landscape plans employed radical, and sometimes chaotic, layouts that were derived literally from workflow diagrams. In this early form, they were never fully accepted in the United States. Workers frequently complained about the lack of privacy, the potential for noise, and—in the case of middle management—the perceived loss of status. As office furniture systems evolved, they become more office-like with tall panels and were arranged according to the organization's hierarchy. Panels simply replaced walls in layouts that mapped the organizational structure in a more regular and departmental manner. In this form, open office plans have become standard.

The workplace research that paralleled the open office movement looked at issues of satisfaction and productivity related to aesthetic or comfort issues such as color, availability of windows, and the degree to which people could control their immediate environment. Research that addresses communication almost always looks at variables such as office enclosure, privacy, and access to technology, not distance, density, or other spatial qualities. The notable exception was the research conducted by Tom Allen at the Sloan School of Management (MIT) who was keenly interested in how distance affected communication and effectiveness of technical workers (Allen 1977). The groundwork he laid down is the impetus to this study, and will be discussed in greater detail.

Communication in Scientific Organizations

Communication among scientists shares the characteristics of both informal communication in general and higher-order dialogue in particular. The stereotype of scientists as abstract thinkers locked away in ivory towers is not accurate. By their nature, scientists are inquisitive and actively seek information relevant to their current or planned research. Scientists are an integral part of an entire network of individuals, groups, and institutions constituting the national and international scientific community. Experimental results contributed by one individual or group are pieces of the collective puzzle; they expand the state of current knowledge in a particular discipline and build a firm foundation upon which new discoveries can be made. Scientific communication and the daily exchange of information play a vital role in educational and collaborative activities and fuel the process of scientific investigation, invention, and discovery.

In June 1993, the New York Academy of Sciences conducted a workshop on "Research Facilities of the Future." Much discussion focused on facility design that helps to promote communication among diverse investigators. It was "believed that, rather than concentrate on facilitating space-age technologies, undreamed-of equipment and instrumentation, and wondrous new organisms and materials, lab designers in the next century will place a heavy emphasis on less-fantastic considerations, such as fostering interdisciplinary communication, creating highly adaptable and cost-efficient facilities, and alleviating the sense of isolation that has long been the lot of the researcher" (Kreeger, 1994).

This belief is supported by a series of studies on the performance of research teams; a common finding has been that the most effective teams are those that communicate not only within the team, but between members of the team and other members of the organization (Allen 1977). Other studies have established that communication among technical professionals is a significant determinant of technical performance and the productivity of project teams (Allen, 1977 and 1997; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Schilling and Bernard, 1964; Kraut, Egido and Galegher, 1990).

There are distinctly different informal and formal methods of scientific communication. Each serves a function relative to both the work of the individual scientist and the operation of the system as a whole. Both methods are required for the integrity of the system (Garvey, 1967; Passman, 1969; Kraut, Egido and Galegher, 1990). Passman (1969) describes a two-tiered system of scientific communication consisting of an informal network used to channel preliminary notifications of research findings and a formal network that produces an archive of findings that have been reviewed and approved by the scientific establishment. Lievrouw (1992) conceives of scientific communication as a cycle with three progressive stages: conceptualization, documentation, and popularization. At the third stage, scientific information is published in the popular media and becomes available to all persons.

Formal written methods of communication include the traditional presentation of scientific findings in the form of a journal article, book chapter, monograph, or textbook, but also include comments or feedback made in the form of letters to editors and reviews. Additionally, the scientific abstract and accompanying poster are rapidly becoming a mainstay of formal research communication. Methods of oral communication include presentations made at international or national conferences and seminars given within a department (including regular department or laboratory meetings) or at another university or research facility. Formal communication methods tend to be public in the sense that they are accessible, have potentially larger audiences, are permanently stored, and are retrievable. Information carried through more formal channels of communication tends to be relatively older compared with information disseminated using more informal means. Information is monitored to ensure conformation to the standards of a particular discipline and must be complete and relevant. The user primarily determines what information is obtained; redundancy of information is, in general, kept to a minimum (Garvey and Griffith, 1967; Craw-ford, 1996).

Less formal means of written communication include personal letters, faxes, email messages, and Web site content. Oral communication methods may include phone conversations, impromptu gatherings or small group meetings, and one-on-one pre-arranged or chance meetings between colleagues. Informal methods of scientific communication generally involve direct interaction between and among scientists, either through face-to-face meetings, phone conversations, or correspondence. Informal communication has also been greatly facilitated by the emergence of the World Wide Web. Organizations and individuals may post findings and engage in discussions via synchronous (teleconferencing and chat rooms) and asynchronous (posting to bulletin boards) Web sites.

An important function of informal communication is to disseminate new ideas and procedures quickly to colleagues. Although journal articles with accompanying citation lists are likely (for the foreseeable future) to remain the accepted medium for the scientific community to record and report the results of its investigations, the lag time between manuscript submission and publication in a peer-reviewed journal can be so great that current information needs of other scientists are not satisfied (Passman, 1969). An informal network or "invisible college" provides investigators with the opportunity to share observations with peers and to seek their review and criticism. The invisible college essentially is an unofficial establishment or network made up of the group of individuals who dominate a particular field. As a group, members of the invisible college cite one another, exchange drafts of journal articles, and research results prior to publication. This mode of informal communication provides opportunities for researchers to explain the relevance of their work, to invite speculation, and to obtain reinforcement and feedback.

Informal communication also serves an important role in supporting new styles of interdisciplinary and collaborative research (Stark, 1994). A recent study by R&D Magazine found that increased economic pressure and global competition has changed the research process from a linear progression to an inter-locking continuum, necessitating higher levels of researcher collaboration (Vanderdorpe, 1998). The study found that companies now conduct basic research on a much shorter schedule than in the past, usually integrating basic research and applied research activities and personnel. The trend toward increased collaboration in both academic and industrial settings is attested by increased co-authorship of articles (Lievrouw, 1992).

Other roles of informal interactions between and among scientists include providing educational resources, reducing duplication of effort, enhancing work ethic and quality control, and stimulating competition (Pelz, 1976). When interacting informally, scientists may speculate about their work, their successes and mistakes, and may discuss aspects they might have done differently. Such speculations only appear rarely in formal communication media. Of special importance is informal interaction across disciplines; without it, ideas about possible interrelationships may go unnoticed.

The goal of enhancing informal interaction has been embraced by the scientific community. Much of the discussion during the New York Academy of Sciences workshop on "Research Facilities of the Future" (previously cited) focused on facility design that promotes interaction among diverse investigators. Workshop attendees described buildings designed "so that people...run into colleagues that they wouldn't be expecting to run into," and informal interaction spaces with tables, chairs, and blackboards (Kreeger, 1994; Stark, 1994).

Several research projects have concluded that informal communication is the single most important indicator of research productivity (Garvey, 1967; ICR, 1968; Pelz, 1976; Allen, 1977). Garvey (1967) found that the more formal parts of scientific communication, such as journals and national scientific meetings, were but a small, dated part of the whole information base when compared with informal outlets, such as technical reports and pre-print exchange groups that distribute information quickly to small, select groups.

In 1976, Pelz and Andrews conducted a landmark study of 1,300 scientists and engineers in 11 research and development laboratories in an effort to learn whether there was a relationship between various aspects of informal communication and performance or productivity. The investigators found that scientists who had daily contact with colleagues amounting to between six to ten hours per week tended to perform at higher levels than those scientists who exhibited less frequent contact. Scientists with the highest levels of performance spent considerably more time communicating with their colleagues than was typical for their immediate group.

With regard to intra- and inter-group communication, the investigation by Pelz and Andrews found that those who worked closely with numerous individuals in their own group tended to work also with many colleagues outside their own group, but within the organization. This finding held up even after accounting for experience and rank. The investigators also found that, of personal contacts between colleagues in the laboratory setting, one-third are initiated by a particular scientist, one-third are initiated by another colleague where someone seeks out the particular scientist, and another third involves those contacts which occur as the result of either formal, planned meetings or spontaneous conversations. Furthermore, it was determined that even organization-initiated contacts enhanced performance. Research productivity was highest for those who regularly initiated contact, next highest for those who were regularly contacted by others, and lowest for those whose contacts occurred in meetings arranged by the organization.

Finally, the investigators determined that three of the four contact measures (frequency of contact with important colleagues, number of colleagues in own group, and number of colleagues in other local groups) were cumulative in their positive effect on research performance. By combining factors, it was determined that frequent contact with many colleagues was preferable to frequent contact with just a few, and that interacting with many colleagues both within and outside one's own group was preferable to having many colleagues only in one's own group or only in other local groups.

A study conducted by the Stanford University Institute for Communication Research (1968) followed the communication behaviors of 786 researchers and found that the use of informal scientific communication is the strongest single predictor of research productivity, even after accounting for such potentially confounding variables as level of education, years in practice, and number of professional memberships held.

More recent studies, that focused on communication issues among technology teams (Kraut, Egido and Galegher, 1990) have also found that physical proximity supports frequent opportunistic conversations that are especially vital to the planning and definitional phases of projects. Their studies also found that researchers are more likely to be familiar with, and to respect the work of colleagues who are nearby.

A study conducted in-house by Hewlett-Packard followed the communication patterns of two highly mobile managers in a Hewlett-Packard research and design facility for one week each, making video and audio recordings of every interaction they had with 97 employees (Frolich, Whittaker, Daly-Jones, 1994). While the study did not attempt to determine the importance of communications to effectiveness, it did establish that informal communication accounted for 31% of the subjects' work time, and the majority of these conversations (67%) occurred in another person's office.

Summary

This section describes the nature and importance of effective communication in individual and organizational performance. Particularly in the scientific community, there is a strong belief that unscheduled, informal interaction is necessary for idea generation and innovation. While only a limited number of studies that specifically measured the relationship between communication and productivity among scientists exists, those that do consistently demonstrate a positive relationship (Shilling and Bernard, 1964; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Allen, 1977, 1997; Kraut, Egido and Galegher, 1990). This study was generated by findings from these studies that informal, unscheduled interactions are critical to performance and productivity among scientific and technical professionals.

METHODS

Subjects and Settings

This study examines communication patterns of researchers in two research facilities in relation to spatial layout. Both facilities are located in Atlanta, Georgia and are engaged in lab-based research. The first organization, Lab A, is the research and development division of an international pharmaceutical products company. The second, Lab B, is the research and development division of an international ophthalmic products company. In both organizations, the research and development division was one of several divisions housed in different buildings in a campus-like setting. For this project, we focused on one division (housed in one building) within each organization. In Lab A, a division of about 64 employees, we collected data on the communication patterns of three (out of the four) research groups. In Lab B, with about 42 employees, we sampled communication patterns from both of the two research groups.

In the case of both of these organizations, and typical of research laboratories in general, the organization is subdivided according to knowledge areas, with relatively few layers of managerial hierarchy, and an array of hierarchically equivalent research groups each focused in a particularly defined area of knowledge. Thus, in both cases, the organization creates a set of knowledge boundaries.

Lab B had recently experienced reorganization around a new project. Although organizationally the workers were subdivided by knowledge area into two groups, there was an effort on the part of management to merge the efforts of these individuals. These objectives had spatial implications, as we will discuss further.

As illustrated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2, the staff that was surveyed at Lab A are located in labs and offices on two floors. All walls are full height and every office and lab has a traditional, full-height door. There are numerous doors located in the halls, although most have some glazing. Due to the maze-like nature of the plan, there is very limited visibility down corridors, into labs, or between offices. With the exception of one coffee station, the corridors have no support services; they act merely as circulation. There are three sets of stairs and an elevator. Each floor has a conference room, and the break room is located downstairs.

As illustrated in Figure 5.3, the participants at Lab B are located in labs and offices on one floor of their R&D building. The offices are located together in one half of the building, and the labs in the other half. Two hallways connect the halves. Offices around the perimeter of the building are traditional, enclosed spaces with full-height doors and sidelight. The majority of the office spaces are in a cluster of open workstations with standing-height walls. The whole office space is arranged in a fairly strict grid pattern, with major and minor paths. Support services, such as mailboxes, coffee station, copy machines, and printers are located in and along the major path that encircles the main workstation zone.

Physical Measures

Plan diagrams were created from images provided by the subject organizations. The plans, which contained room names and showed the locations of all team members, were distributed to the participants. The plans were also used to generate the physical measures of distance, integration, and isovists.

Distance. The walking distances in meters along the most direct corridors between team leaders and team members was measured.
Space Syntax. Syntax analysis was applied using the Axman program developed at the University of London. Space syntax analysis is a technique for the analysis of form based on spatial characteristics. It is highly predictive of movement patterns in buildings. Its predictive strength is based on characteristics of space, irrespective of function (Hillier and Hanson, 1984).
Isovists. Isovists are the areas comprising the set of spatial points visible from a single spatial point (Benedikt, 1979). In this study, isovist areas were measured from the door of each team leaders' work-station. The number of doorways visible in the leader's isovist area were counted.

Communication Measures

Both laboratory organizations engaged in confidential research. It was necessary that our methods allowed us to obtain the information required without knowledge of the actual content of exchange among the scientists. The focus of the study was on communication in general, without attempting to distinguish between work-related versus social or other types of work-related conversations, other than an attempt to distinguish between scheduled and unscheduled. Since the intent of the study was to focus on interaction, activity was defined as either "talking" and, if not talking, participants were instructed to classify all other activities as just "working." This allowed the recording to be less intrusive to the participants and to preserve confidentiality concerning specific activities.

The communication data set consists of 2,367 recorded events for 25 participants at Lab A, and 2,212 recorded events for 22 participants at Lab B. During a total data collection period of four weeks, participants carried a vibrating pager and micro recorder during business hours. They responded to ten random pages per day by recording their location, activity, and, if they are engaged in face-to-face interaction, with whom they are speaking (i.e. group or non-group colleague, administrative personnel, outside consultant, or sales representative). During the data collection for Lab B, data was also collected on whether the interaction was 'scheduled' (planned prior to the interaction) or 'unscheduled.' Floor plans, with room names and the location of every team member were distributed to the participants.

DISCUSSION

Significant Comparative Results

The spatial layouts of the two research units in this study are fundamentally different. In Lab A, the spatial layout reflects a correspondence to the organizational description. Working groups, defined by knowledge area, are distributed throughout the building generally in local clusters of office space in proximity to labs or within laboratory spaces (about half of the respondents occupied desks located in a lab). Lab B, in contrast, is an example of non-correspondence. The organizational description defines two working groups, reflecting two knowledge areas. These groups, however, are spatially co-located, and even within the local area, workers from the two groups are interspersed. The labs are quite separate from the offices, linked to the office area through two hallways.

Despite the organization of space by knowledge areas, both organizations described their respective cultures as collaborative, both within and between knowledge areas. Both organizations described informal, unplanned interactions—the "serendipitous" encounters of Peters and Waterman (1982)—as desirable behaviors of their research staff. Focusing on these unplanned interactions, the data analysis reveals some interesting similarities and differences between the laboratory settings.

The results demonstrated almost twice as many interactions in Lab B than in Lab A. In both settings, most talking occurred in offices, not in hallways. However, axial analysis results suggest that interactions in hallways and offices are not well correlated with integration or even with local integration. That frequency of interaction did not correlate well with hallway or office integration in either setting can be explained by two facts. First, most talking did not occur in the hallways, which were the most integrated spaces in both systems. Second, offices where the majority of talking occurred were not themselves highly integrated. As it turns out however, the offices where the majority of talking occurred were linked directly to hallways with very high integration values. A new value called "linked interaction" was generated by assigning the frequency of talking that occurred in these offices to their linked hallway integration value, resulting in suggestive (Lab B) and significant (Lab A) correlations. The strength of this relationship increases for local integration, where both settings exhibit very significant correlations. These linked value results confirm previous syntax research on the relationship between integration and informal interaction and provide some understanding of the relationship between integration and informal interaction, and ultimately building configuration.

This relationship can be illustrated by the difference in percentages of interactions that occur in the office of team leaders. At Lab A, where the team leaders' offices are all at least three steps away from high integration hallways, only 14 percent of all unscheduled talking that occurred in offices took place in a team leader's office. At Lab B where the team leaders' offices were all directly linked to a high integration hallway, almost 40 percent of all talking that occurred in offices was in one of those team leaders' office.

Scientists whose communication rates were high generally did not travel far from their office to engage in interactions. This suggests that interaction levels at Lab B (almost twice as many as Lab A) were higher because all participants were located very close together. These results support the idea that people talk more often when they are located closer together, and confirms the findings of Allen (1977, 1997) and others (Kraut, Egido and Galegher, 1990), who demonstrated that the probability of two organizations' members communicating regularly declines rapidly as the distance between their work locations increases.

The fact that the majority of interactions at both sites occurred in offices directly linked to high integration hallways might suggest that where greater distances are involved, the frequency of informal interaction decreases, but those that occur are still concentrated in offices directly linked to high integration hallways. The fact that the linked relationship for global integration and interaction was not significant at Lab B, but was at Lab A, suggests that as distances become greater (as at Lab A), the effect of integration becomes more powerful.

Taken together, these two findings—that distance is related to frequency of communication, and that communications tend to occur in offices linked to integrated hallways regardless of frequency—might suggest that that circulation layout may have more influence on frequency as distance between workers increases. In Lab B members of the two work groups are co-located and interspersed, distances are minimal. In Lab A, work groups, defined by knowledge area are grouped, so within a group distances are minimal. However each work group is separated from other work groups by greater distances. Thus, these teams are much more dependent upon characteristics of the global spatial system for opportunities for interaction. In the case of Lab A, interactions tended to remain within the local area, and the opportunity for interaction outside the local area was more dependent on the integration of the local system into the global system, a measure termed local-to-global interface, or intelligibility (Hillier and Penn, 1991). This measure is important as a characteristic of the spatial system as a whole. When plotted against interaction frequency, it is a powerful predictor of both the rate of interaction taking place along various hallways and individual scientists' rates of interaction.

CONCLUSION

Building Configuration and Communication

To understand the relationship between communication and building configuration, it is useful to consider the nature of the research work environment and the manner in which informal interaction occurs. This study found that the most common site for informal interactions were offices located on high integration corridors. Subsequent observations and interviews with scientists in similar research buildings revealed that informal interactions among equal or similar status colleagues typically occur when one person passes the open doorway or interior window of a colleague, and recognizing that the person is available, stops in to pose a question, or make a comment. Or, a person working in his or her office or lab who sees a colleague passing by may gesture or call out to the colleague to come in.

A three-part descriptive list of architectural features related to communication provides a framework for understanding the variables of these interactions. First, layout, expressed as distance defines the typical range in which people travel about their workplace, and therefore, how many colleagues are potentially available for interaction. Second, circulation, expressed as integration, defines the high movement paths that people will use to travel about their workplace. Finally, spatial quality, expressed as visibility, enables people to see and be seen by their colleagues.

Layout and Distance

Regarding layout and distance, buildings where all scientists are co-located result in minimal travel distances. For example, in buildings where all scientists' offices are co-located regardless of discipline (Lab B), the average distance between them is less than 30 meters—the range suggested as critical by Allen (1977). The average distance between scientists' offices in a building characterized by a loop or "race-track" pattern, which has two to four clusters of offices, is about 38 meters. A three-winged university building divided between disciplines, has an average distance between scientists' offices of 48 meters. Finally, a linear plan with office clusters at both ends has an average distance between scientists' offices of 85 meters—almost three times the distance considered to be the range for informal travel about a building. Lab A, from this study has an average distance between scientists of 38 meters. But, with a standard deviation of 16 meters, this figure is skewed because about half the participants were clustered into several offices, while the three team leaders were located far away in private offices.

Circulation and Integration

Regarding circulation patterns and integration, the arrangement of primary corridors in a balanced grid provides the highest integration values. Locating offices directly on these corridors affords the most opportunity for passing by multiple colleagues as one moves about a building. In layout types such as linear and loops, where there may be only one or two highly integrated paths connected to secondary paths that lead to departments or offices, people moving from one part of the building to the other may have no reason to stray off the primary path. They will not see nor be seen by colleagues on their journey. As previously described, people tend to perceive others who occupy space along heavily traveled corridors as "more useful." While this raises the possibility that more important or useful people are placed in heavily trafficked areas from the outset, there is also the possibility that the fact they are more visible makes them more likely to be called upon.

Sorting through nine laboratory examples by integration value confirms that buildings with the highest integration values are grid plans. In two buildings, two major corridors are linked at multiple places through a large generic lab space, creating a virtual balanced grid.

The next highest integration pattern is the university science research building with three major corridors that cross each other at right angles and run down the middle of three separate wings, each with their own set of offices and support areas. The fact that this plan had a high integration value was surprising because it runs counter to conventional wisdom that separating a building into three wings is not conducive to movement or interaction. However the dominance of three major corridors, without smaller secondary corridors, and their intersection at a common point in the atrium, combine to produce a high integration value.

The next integration cluster consists of loop plan buildings. Plans consist of one major corridor with few or no cross corridors. A second linear plan has the next integration value, which is significantly lower than other linear plans. This building has three major corridors, but the paths do not converge at one point, resulting in a lower integration value.

Buildings with the laboratory areas that terminate at one end, or at both ends, in a loop office area have strong linear circulation plans. Overall integration values for both plans are low. This is due to the split nature of the layouts. That is, the loops only exist in the office area, which in turn are connected to the lab blocks by other corridors. The lab blocks are mostly linear. Even Lab A from this project has a slightly higher mean integration value (.89).

Spatial Quality

The third variable, spatial quality refers to the degree of visibility at the boundary between circulation and private workspaces, as well as the capacity of the boundary area to support informal interaction. For this study, a simple measure of "visual field," or the area visible from the door of each office significantly correlated with frequency of interaction. Subsequent observations and interviews with participants from this study and members of other research and business organizations revealed the importance of visibility into, as well as out of, private offices. This two-way visibility can be accomplished through a glazed door, medium or low-height partition, or interior window. While this study did not specifically measure visibility or boundary conditions, beyond the measure of visual field described above, some general comments are possible. At Lab A, with the exception of one team leader, all offices, whether shared or private had solid doors without windows. Workstations in offices that were shared did not have panels or partitions between them. At Lab B, all private offices had glazed doors, and the majority of participants were located in open office cubicles with 60-inch high panels but no doors. Given the height of the panels, it was only possible to survey the room to see who was available for interaction when people where standing in their office. However, the general openness of the plan, especially around those open office stations without doors, greatly facilitated visibility into and out of offices as one moved around the floor.

In terms of the capacity of the boundary area to support informal interaction, it is interesting to note that at Lab A, there was only one area of widened corridor that could be considered an informal interaction area. It was near the toilets, elevator, and a stair, and contained a small counter with a coffee machine. Even though this area was located near the intersection of two major corridors, it was offset from both, so that there was not a clear line of sight between the corridors and the coffee area. At Lab B, on the other hand, the coffee bar was highly visible from many areas of the open plan workspace. Also, at Lab B, several support functions, such as mailboxes, fax and copy machines, and small white boards were located at various places along the major corridor. There were no support services either in or near the major corridors at Lab A, except the one coffee area described above. And, although most talking in both labs occurred in offices, and movement was only a small percentage of all events (three percent of events in Lab A and four percent of events in Lab B). Forty percent of events in the corridors at Lab A were talking, while 72 percent of events in the corridors at Lab B were talking. This suggests that the corridors at Lab B were more conducive to informal interaction.

Future Research

The research findings in this study demonstrate that patterns of communication among scientists are related to layout strategy, circulation patterns, and spatial quality. Measures of distance, spatial integration, and visibility were found to affect patterns of communication among scientists. Further, the findings suggest that distance among scientists affects interaction frequency, and that as the distance between scientists increases, the effect of integration increases. Visibility, while not examined as closely as distance and integration, also seems to be related to interaction. These findings suggest several subjects for further research.

Foremost is the link between distance and integration. Specifically, can distance be offset by integration, and vice-versa? Studies in which one variable, either distance or integration was constant between research sites would provide evidence about this relationship and confirm the proposition that distance affects frequency of interaction, while integration affects location of interaction, with the effect becoming stronger when distance increases.

Another research question involves establishing the intention of trips that result in informal interactions. In previous research, attempts were made to determine how the purpose of communication (social, routine, idea-generating, etc.) was related to interaction location and frequency. However, this proved to be somewhat difficult because most informal communication is very rich, involving many purposes. Instead, understanding the original intent of the trip would reveal more about how the building configuration affects the probability of an informal interaction occurring. For example, if the intention of a trip is to talk to a particular person, then the way in which the building is configured may be of little consequence in the completion of that intended communication. However, if a trip begins with the intent to perform non-communication functions, such as getting coffee, or making copies, then the building configuration may be more important in facilitating informal interactions. Even when a trip begins with the intention of talking to a particular person, the probability of having other informal interactions during the trip may be a func-tion of the building layout.

Research could also look more carefully at how visibility at the boundary between circulation and private work areas is related to people's ability to engage in informal interactions, and at what point too much visibility becomes a negative factor. It would also be useful to investigate how visibility requirements at the boundary vary among different organizational types and disciplines. In group project areas, it has been theorized that a group's ability to maintain its boundary is critical to group cohesion (Sundstrom and Altman, 1990). Yet it is not clear from current research what is the appropriate level of boundary, and how communication between and among groups is affected by changes to the boundary. In light of the increased use of project groups in business and research, it would be useful to define what constitutes a group's boundary and visibility requirements and how they are related to communication.

Another potential area of research, not addressed by this study, are non-spatial environmental variables, such as lighting, air quality, noise, and ergonomics. As previously reported, studies on acoustical privacy related to the workplace and communication have produced conflicting results (Wineman, 1986). While some studies have concluded that open office planning increases opportunities for interaction, other studies found decreased confidential communications (Sundstrom, Herbert and Brown, 1982), and decreased motivation and worker satisfaction with the workplace (Oldham and Brass, 1979). These studies have tended to focus on the conditions of the immediate workplace, and not on how groups of offices are distributed or integrated into the overall building configuration. Studies that examined other variables, such as lighting, air quality, and ergonomics have not addressed their relationship to communication. However, as these variables involve general comfort in the workplace, they may in turn affect how often or where people choose to interact with their colleagues.

A review conducted over the course of this study on new research facilities featured in architectural design magazines found that creating interactive buildings is a key programming consideration for architects and building owners. Articles about new facilities consistently describe the interactive nature of the space, especially features such as atria, main streets, monumental stairs, lobbies, cyber cafes, and breakout spaces. However, these claims are generally anecdotal, and not substantiated by research. It would be productive to perform spatial analysis on plans that are considered successfully "interactive" to understand how distance, integration, and visibility are involved.

Design Guidelines

This study focuses on the relationships between spatial layout and patterns of communication. Conclusions indicate ways in which spatial layout contribute to local and global levels of communication. It is a management policy decision related to a variety of organizational factors including goals, management practices, and corporate culture that ultimately determines the desirability of enhancing communication for any particular organization.

While additional research will more clearly establish the relationship between building configuration and communication, there is credible evidence from this study, and others to recommend the following design guidelines for organizations that wish to encourage informal interaction.

Buildings with balanced grid configurations, in which scientists' offices are co-located, or at least clustered in a few areas directly on high integration corridors, provide the most opportunity for informal interaction. In such systems, all corridors are equally traveled, and there are few, if any secondary or tertiary corridors leading to offices. As people move about the building, there are simply more chances that they will see and be seen by other colleagues with whom they can interact. Visibility at the boundary between circulation and offices, in the form of interior windows, enables colleagues to notice other colleagues for interac-tion. In the case of large floor plates, where scientists may be distantly located, it is even more important that their offices be located along highly integrated corridors and that there is ample visibility into these work areas.

Locating support services along highly integrated corridors, or in rooms directly connected to high integraion corridors causes more people to come into contact with each other as they move from their offices to support spaces. Offices in departmental suites, connected to high integration paths by secondary corridors or lobbies decrease opportunities for informal interaction. Vertical separation also decreases the opportunity for informal interaction because of increased distance and decreased integration and visibility. Conventional design wisdom suggests that vertical separation can be partially overcome by providing large atria spaces, but as previously mentioned, there is no hard data to support this idea.

This research project has considered patterns of communication among scientists and the design of their work space. It continued a line of research that examines the relationship between the layout and design of buildings and interaction patterns among building users. The project included an innovative means of capturing communication data through a computer-based system of random paging and recording responses. The results demonstrated a relationship between measures of distance and integration with measures of frequency and location of informal interactions. A descriptive list of architectural features was presented to frame existing research and generates further research questions on the phenomenon of predicting communication patterns by quantifying and comparing building configurations.

We welcome your Questions and Comments