I had a call recently from a concerned member of the public. He'd been reading some of my recent Herald articles (and reader comments) about how people struggle to work well in crowded open plan offices. He wanted me to know that the NZ Government is actively working to reduce floor space per person. (I've not checked, but suspect that New Zealand is not the only government beating this particular drum.)
On the surface saving space sounds like a worthy aim. However, there is a problem. Over recent years I've heard many horror stories from government employees who struggle with squashed and inefficient working conditions, including many in very modern Green Star-rated buildings.
So I went digging. Sure enough, the Property Management Centre of Expertise, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, has been tasked with reducing wasted office space. They're 'working towards an occupancy goal of 12-16 m2 [about 130 - 172 sq. ft] per full-time employee'.
I totally support their aim to 'provide productive, flexible, cost-effective workspaces' and I'd be the first to agree that we want our tax money used wisely. And the various referenced documents, including a Cost Benefit Analysis Tool, do mention consideration of different working styles. However, since government workers in their droves are telling me they're finding it harder and harder to work effectively, I wonder just how much the far bigger ongoing costs of wages, sick leave and lost productivity are really considered.
Problem is, 'productive' means different things to different people. Many people, but especially introverts - and they're close to 50 per cent of the workforce- struggle to function effectively when they're pushed into open-plan spaces. Such layout only works well with very careful design and plenty of alternatives for different purposes and working styles.