Office Building Design “We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us” University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Business Administration Strategy and Innovation Author: Wendy Tempels Student Number: 1385526 Date: October, 2009 1st Supervisor: dr. H. Snijders 2nd Supervisor: dr. T.L.J. Broekhuizen Preface During my study I always wanted to go abroad to ‘broaden my horizon’ and to learn about another culture, but it never really happened. The end of my study was in sight I chose to conduct the research for my thesis abroad. Australia was on top of the list and therefore I contacted organizations that might be interested in a research student conducting a research in the area of Strategy and Innovation. Through an acquaintance I came into contact with Arup and together we agreed on a research topic: the strategic design of office buildings. Before writing my master thesis I had little knowledge of the design of buildings and the complex process of designing buildings. However, with the help of the experts at Arup I was able to shape my research question in such a way that it would add value for the research in Strategy and Innovation and for Arup as a company. In order to be of value for both I look at the design of buildings from a perspective of my master in Strategy and Innovation and I thereby leave the technical aspects up to the experts in the field. In order to complete my research, I received help from a number of people that I hereby would like to thank. First of all I would like to thank all the interviewees, without their input this research could not have been conducted. I would also like to thank Caroline Edge, the library assistant at Arup for her guidance in finding the right secondary resources and Robert Hobson and Elli Firestone for reviewing my research and giving valuable comments. Furthermore I would like to thank John Tsoukas for giving me the opportunity to carry out my research at the Management Consulting department of Arup in Melbourne. And additionally I thank Arup and in particular the department for taking me up in their team, especially Gideon van der Westhuizen for supervising me and providing me with helpful contacts in the industry. Another special gratitude goes to Hendrik Snijders for giving me objective feedback and interesting insights that helped me develop this research, being flexible and taking time for discussions. I would also like to thank Thijs Broekhuizen for his willingness to review this thesis. My time with Arup in Melbourne was wonderful, the experience shaped me as a person and I enjoyed every minute of it. All the world belongs to me, Melbourne, July 2009 I’ve all the world to give Wendy Tempels Full of beans Full of glee Gosh! It’s good to live! Ove Arup 2 Abstract This research is a multiple case study on the factors that positively influence the use value of an office building from an occupiers’ perspective. The concept of design of an office building can be described in terms of functionality, aesthetics, durability and sustainability. The value of an office building is subjectively determined by the occupiers and is determined by the value the design dimensions add to the occupiers of the office building. The factors in the design process that are identified as positively influencing the use value are integrated design, end-user involvement and the statement of organizational needs in the briefing stage of design. Integrated design leads to an office building that will technically be better valued, the end-user involvement will make the design more human- focussed and the end-user more tolerant for change. And the statement of the organizational needs in the briefing stage of the design will lead to a building that fits the needs of the occupying organization. 3 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Research Objective ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Research question .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Research Approach ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Design ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Value ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Adding value with design ............................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 18 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Research design ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Sample Selection ......................................................................................................................... 20 4. RESULTS PART ONE: CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................ 23 4.1 Case: Council House 2 ................................................................................................................ 23 4.2 Case: Bendigo Bank Headquarters .............................................................................................. 28 4.3 Case: Eastlink Operations Centre ................................................................................................ 32 4.4 Case: 1010 LaTrobe .................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 Case: Life.Lab ............................................................................................................................. 41 4.5 Case: Southern Cross building .................................................................................................... 45 5. RESULTS PART TWO: GENERAL PERSPECTIVES................................................................... 48 5.1 Integrated design ......................................................................................................................... 48 5.2 Involving end-users ..................................................................................................................... 49 5.3 Stating organizational needs ........................................................................................................ 50 6. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 52 6.1 Added value of the buildings ....................................................................................................... 52 6.2 Integrated design ......................................................................................................................... 53 6.2 End-user involvement .................................................................................................................. 55 6.3 Stating organizational needs ........................................................................................................ 57 7. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 59 8. FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 63 9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 65 8.1 Articles and Books ...................................................................................................................... 65 8.2 Websites ...................................................................................................................................... 69 9. APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 70 4 1. INTRODUCTION During the Second World War in a meeting about the rebuilding of the House of Commons held in the House of Lords, Winston Churchill made his famous observation about the relationship between the two party parliamentary systems and the design of the debating chamber when he said “we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us ” (1943). This statement would mean that the way our buildings are shaped, influences the way we as persons and businesses are shaped. This then entreats the question: how to shape a building in such a way that it shapes us for the better. Designers of buildings have been interested in the