COLUMN ONE : An Office Designed for People : Technologists make computer equipment and furniture builders make desks. The two meet all too infrequently.
When the renowned furniture designer Bill Stumpf teaches his industrial design course, he always begins with two slides. The first shows a state-of-the-art office complete with dimmed lights, sleek furniture modules and glowing computer screens. The second shows writer E. B. White sitting on a wooden bench at a wooden table in a shed in front of an open, bay-view window and typing on a manual typewriter.
The students, Stumpf says, have little trouble deciding that the Cape Cod fishing shack is the far better working environment.
The two images illustrate the dilemma faced by the computer industry, the furniture industry and, indeed, the entire business community as a result of the desktop terminal’s inexorable takeover of the office. Somehow, a way must be found to meld the ever-expanding power of the computer into a working environment that is physically comfortable and mentally stimulating.
Stumpf calls the missing element in office design “civility.”
Doug Patton, head of the product-design company Patton Design Enterprises in Costa Mesa, says that a work space should be “open, creative and fun.” Jim Stewart, manager for advanced design at Apple Computer Corp., talks of the need for “collaborative, inter-active work tools.” Nearly everyone involved in furniture and computer design pays lip service, at least, to the notion that the office of the future must do a better job of meeting “the real needs of the worker” than the office of today.
There is little agreement, however, as to just how radically the office needs to be changed. Many in product design speak disdainfully of American business for not taking the problem seriously, and ominously predict that forward-thinking European and Japanese companies will soon fill the gap. Furniture and computer industry executives say, on the other hand, that they are moving as quickly as market realities will allow.
That debate is likely to be fueled today, when a revolutionary office concept, sponsored by Apple Computer and developed by Patton Design, makes its debut at the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles. The prototype, dubbed Workspace 2000, aims to produce a comfortable, personalized atmosphere for creative work by integrating the most sophisticated computer equipment into office furniture.
Patton said that Workspace 2000 will do nothing less then free the worker from the “ball and chain” of desk, telephone and terminal. It will allow people to wander freely, computerized “pads” in hand, among tables that are really touch-sensitive, voice-activated computer screens, office partitions that double as video-conference consoles and desks that contain hidden copiers and fax machines.
“Technology has been making people change to meet its requirements, but it should be the other way around,” said Patton, a muscular, mustachioed 36-year-old. “We need to break the existing product-furniture-environment boundaries.” Just as software advances have made computers more accessible, Patton said, the entire office must be overhauled to make it more “user friendly” and allow for truly collaborative work.
Jim Stewart, Apple’s manager for advanced design research and the moving force behind the company’s “advanced environments” program, would not say whether Apple was developing special products for the Workspace 2000 concept. But he emphasized that all parts of the system--from the large, flat video screens to the wireless communications network that links everything--are technically feasible today.
“When we presented this to the product development people (at Apple), the first thing they said was: ‘There are a lot of things here that can’t be done,’ ” Stewart recalled. “But, on closer examination, everything here is doable and has been shown in public.”
The Workspace 2000 model has a desk, a two-man conference table and an adjustable surface that resembles a drafting table when horizontal and a blackboard when upright--each of which has a computer screen for a surface. There is also a curved partition that functions as a video screen and also can be clear or opaque, depending on whether the worker wants privacy.
Hand-held computer pads can be spoken into or used with an electronic pen. A pad can be inserted into a slot in one of the other devices, mounted on a chair arm or placed on a free-standing pedestal that contains a re-charger. Other components are miniature video-conference equipment and a “power pillar” for optical data storage.
Though few people have seen Workspace 2000 in advance of its public debut--Apple kept it under wraps for well over a year after its completion--those who have are enthusiastic. “It’s dynamite, beautiful, a very thorough analysis of the human being and how he is going to interact with his environment,” said Ron Pierce, a designer with S. G. Hauser Associates in Calabasas and president of the local chapter of the Industrial Designers Society of America.
“It’s one of the most exciting concepts I’ve seen in a long time,” said Lucie Young, an editor with Design magazine in London, which is planning a major feature on Workspace 2000. “The office furniture industry has recently seen only superficial changes. This could revolutionize the way people work.”
Katherine Bennett, a Los Angeles-based industrial designer, called Workspace 2000 “an excellent study,” and added: “This project is user-driven. Too many manufacturers and designers are technology-driven.”
But not everyone is so enthusiastic about integrating furniture and computers, or, indeed, about making any drastic change in the physical infrastructure of the office. Aside from efforts such as an experimental secretarial station commissioned by Xerox Corp. and built by Egg Design of Cypress, there have been few well-financed explorations of radical office concepts.
George Wilmot, vice president for advanced research at office furniture maker Knoll International, said his company had concluded that “embedding computer equipment in any significant way in the furniture is not a good idea.”
He said that assessment was dictated by analysis of the way computers are really used, and by the simple reality that computer technology is changing so quickly that it would be impractical to incorporate it into furniture that might be in use for a decade or more. “The philosophy at Knoll is to find a means to house computer equipment,” Wilmot said.
Gus Rodriguez, manager for furniture systems at Steelcase Corp., noted that both the computer and the office furniture industries are relatively young. “We are both still going through our growing pains, and integration will really come only when we reach a certain level of stability,” Rodriguez said. “We are involved in several projects in that area, but we have to take a step-by-step approach.”
A structural problem also inhibits work on computer-furniture integration: Computer companies are in the computer business and furniture companies are in the furniture business, and the two meet all too infrequently.
Peter Bressler, president of the Industrial Designers Society of America, noted that “the furniture industry is close to fashion, and the computer industry is close to engineering. These are two very polarized perspectives.”
Stumpf also pointed to “a gap in the field of interest between the computer and the furniture industries.” He said that the Ethospace office system he designed for Herman Miller Inc., his primary client, was supposed to have computer screens in the office partitions, but collaboration with the computer company Unisys had not worked out.
Stewart of Apple said it would take “visionary business relationships” to bring something like Workspace 2000 to fruition. Although some such collaborations are in the works, representatives of Apple and other firms would not discuss them.
But many in the design community believe there has simply been too little commitment, too little money and too little daring in the whole area of office design. Steve Diskin, a Los Angeles product designer and a partner in Mega-Erg, an office-environment think tank, said that the office furniture field is conservative and currently is characterized by “confusion and timidity.”
Diskin said he fears that the lack of innovation in office design will soon come back to haunt U.S. industry. “It’s an exact parallel to what happened in Detroit (automobile industry),” he said. “They said ‘the public isn’t ready for these things’ and then the Japanese came in and ran away with it because they were a little bolder.”
Bressler, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not his association, criticized the furniture industry as being “rather superficial when it comes to really dealing with technology.”
Indeed, while the furniture companies boast about the advances they have made in “cord-management”--accommodation of electronic cables in office furniture systems--many designers virtually spit the words “cord-management” as an example of, in Bressler’s words, “designing a system for yesterday.”
Computer-furniture integration, pioneered in the 1970s by the Italian designer Mario Bellini in studies for the office equipment maker Olivetti, is only a sub-set of the office-of-the-future debate. As Patton and others are quick to point out, the real issue is creating an office that meets the needs of workers.
The trouble is that it’s not always obvious what the office worker really needs, as opposed to what the boss surmises he might need. Patton says that in the typical modern office, “objective needs, such as the ability to compose and manipulate data, are well met, but subjective needs--for comfort, security, ease of use, person-to-person contact, privacy, portability--are not well met.”
Pinning down these “subjective” needs is not easy. Although furniture and computer companies brim with “human factors” specialists who analyze everything from the ideal height of a desk to the proper lighting of a computer screen, ergonomics--defined in Webster’s dictionary as “the study of the problems of people in adjusting to their environment”--is still in its infancy.
“We’re sorry to see that no one is investing in real ergonomic studies,” said Charles W. Pelly, president of Designworks USA of Newbury Park, Calif. “It’s a finger-pointing situation that goes all the way up to the architects. We can’t get pure research money from anyone to try and look at these problems.”
In the area of basic physical comfort and safety, some progress has been made. The Santa Monica-based Human Factors Society has developed a standard for computer workstations that addresses issues such as adjustability of furniture and screen resolution. Biomechanics Corp. of America, a New York-based start-up company, has built sensing tools that can measure stresses on the human body with more precision than ever before.
The best answer to the repetitive-motion and vision problems associated with too much work at a computer screen is to free the worker from sitting at a terminal all day, many designers say. And more subtle issues, such as allowing for the right mix of privacy and human contact--or creating a “feel” as nice as the one in E. B. White’s fishing shack--are even more elusive.
Stumpf said that “many of the techno-approaches to the office are a complete misrepresentation of what people really want.” Defining those real needs, he said, is often a matter of common sense. Stewart of Apple said that a main purpose of the advanced-design program was “need-finding,” and that he tries to “use design as a catalyst” to looking at the problems.
Patton said the approach he and three colleagues took in Workspace 2000 was based on both instinct and analysis. “A lot of it is very emotional,” he said. “Design combines what is very rational and logical with what feels right.”
The “rational” analysis for Workspace 2000 produced a set of design goals, including eliminating redundancies of function, restoring the ability to move about freely, creating comfortable settings for conversations and group interaction, preserving privacy and allowing the option of customizing each work area.
On a more instinctive level, each component of the Workspace 2000 system is a “metaphor” for a proven device such as a blackboard, a drafting table, a conventional school desk or a note pad. Patton said he hoped that such familiar forms would counteract the impersonal character of computer technology.
Of course, even if Workspace 2000 or some other concept were deemed the ideal office of the future, there is always the troubling question of how much an employer will pay to provide a “fun”--or even a healthful--office environment. Something like Patton’s project would cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit if it were built today, a price far beyond the reach of most potential buyers.
Corporate facilities managers such as Dan Derby at Hewlett-Packard realize, however, that an attractive working environment is more than just nice. It is an increasingly important tool in recruiting not only executives but also professionals such as engineers, lawyers and commercial artists. “We have to pay much more attention to the people’s environment now--there’s no question that it’s part of the recruiting process,” Derby said.
And Diskin of Mega-Erg said that new office designs could help address a key economic issue in the office today: the cost of floor space. If the desk is also a computer there is that much more room for everything else.
Patton doesn’t spend much time talking about the economic practicalities, though. He is more interested in the theory of the office revolution.
“A lot of these ideas are embryonic,” he said, “but we’re trying to create an inspirational workplace to elevate individual and group interactions.
“Suddenly, with this, you’re not chained to your desk any more.”
The Office of Tomorrow The office furniture envisioned by Patton Design infuses computer functionally into sleek modern forms. All parts of the system are linked in a wireless network, and plug-in program modules allow use of a variety of software applications. Translator A curved screen that can change from clear glass to a solid-color privacy screen at the touch of a button. The screen is also used for teleconferencing and can simultaneously display data or additional images. Counselor A worktable for two with a surface that can display data and accept input from either user. Pad A portable battery-powered computer similar in size and shape to a note pad. Data can be entered by speaking to it, by handwriting on the pad’s display surface or by scanning an image into it. The pad can be connected or “docked,” with all other components in the system. Work Board A flat panel display that can be used vertically as an “electonic chalkboard” or horizontally as a work surface. Includes a telephone, fax, scanner and printer. Com-Chair A special arm designed to fit most types of workstation chairs provides another plug-in receptacle for the pad. The arm folds down andout of the way when not in use.
