Different perceptions of Lean in Office Design
Christina BodinDanielsson, Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University/
BrunnbergandForshed Architects Ltd., Stockholm
Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm
E-mail:
Abstract
This article investigates what lean means in an office context. Two main perspectives have been identified: 1) one scientific management approach that advocates a "standardization" of the office design, and 2) one that promotes teamwork by office design to support problem solving and learning organization in lean in order to shorten lead times and free up time. The two different approaches are exemplified with their different features and implication to office work. A concluding problematization of the concept of lean office design is done in the summary.
Keywords: Lean, Office Design, Tayloristic, standardization, team, learning organization
Introduction
Lean is one of the strongest trends in contemporary work organization within governmental andmunicipal operations in Sweden. The trend seems to be the same in other Scandinavian countries as well. It was e.g. inDenmark found that in year 2007 was 70% of the municipalities, 50% of government operationsand 40% of the privatesector involved inaleanproject in various ways(Edwards, Bojesen, & Paarup Nielsen, 2010). With the introduction of lean in the civil service it has only been a matter of time before lean would be applied to office design. The question is then what does lean mean in an office context and what implication does it have. The question is important to investigate since the the officeisthe physical workfora majorityof the workforcein the western worldandthis numberis constantly increasingdue tothe transition fromaproduction toaservice societyin the Western world(Brill, Weidemann, Alard, Olson, & Keable, 2001; Duffy, 1999). In addition to this, we know that the office environment plays a great impact in the daily life of these people since a full-timeemployeespendsapprox.40%of the waking hoursat work.
The overall goal oflean isto free uptime and work moreefficiently by creating a better workflow, visualize the orderliness, short lead times, reduce waste, implementing continuous improvements and increase flexibility. The concept of leanhas evolvedover time anddue to this has the concept has beeninterpreted differentlyby different actors, which has leftroom fora variety ofdifferentimplementations despite a clear goal(P. Hines, M. Holweg, & N. Rich, 2004). As we look closer at the matter, the same shifting idea of what lean means exist in the area of office design as well.Despite this cantwo main perspectives be identified: 1) the neo-Tayloristic lean office, that applies a scientific management approach that advocates a "standardization" of the office design, and 2) the team-based lean office, that focuses onproblem solvingandlearning organizationin lean in order toshortenlead times andfree up time.
Flex-office, is an office type that is often referred to as a lean office, together with its less well-defined sub-groups that are called"hot desking" and "hoteling."Flex-office is an office type defined by the fact that the employees’ hold no personal workstation, but also by other features such as good access to back-up rooms, i.e. rooms for concentrated work, meetings etc. and the ability work outside the office on an as need-basis. Another important feature is that the office is dimensioned for 70% of the total work force since people are expected to be absent from workstations due to in meetings, work outside the office, illness etc(for details see Bodin Danielsson, 2007, 2010). Hot desking is defined as an office in which employees taken on a first-come-first-served basis and hoteling is an office defined by non-personal workstations that are booked in advance (Millward, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007; Stegmeier, 2008). All threetypes of offices apply a "clean desk policy" (Fredrickson, 1989), which implies that the workstation must be cleaned from personal attributes after use, thus not be personalized by employees.Thesefeatureshavecollectivelymadetoflex-office andits subgroupscolloquiallyreferred to asleanoffice. There areobvious "lean advantages"to the characteristicstothese offices, such as inabilityfor employees toadjustwork stationsmakes iteasy to moveboth people andgroupswithinan office(Hobson, 2006; Thompson, 2000). This also facilitatesthe work ofjanitorialand facility managementdepartmentin chargerearrangement, becausethe changing workplacearebothlessemotionaland lesslinked tothe status(Keyte & Locher, 2004; Titman, 1991).This latterfactorfacilitatesthe rotation ofbothindividual employeesand teamsinan office.The lack of important lean functions makes it however not possible classify these three offices as lean without further developments of their concepts. Although they all three can be useful approaches in lean office design, especially flex-office due to its clear "activity base" approach (Becker, 2004).
The two identified perspectives on lean office design – the neo-Tayloristic lean office and team-based lean office – differentiate from each other, but despite this fact they share some characteristics due to the common goal of making the work process more efficient by eliminating factors that does not create value for the end costumer. Both perspectives are based on the concept of "cooperating production" (Shah & Ward, 2003), which is a prerequisite for a successful implementing of lean. This requires that all levels of an organization work together, from individual and team level to management level.
Cooperating production is characterized bythebreakinghierarchieswithin an organization. Thismanifests itself in: a) horizontal control is appliedinstead ofhierarchicalcontrol, b) customized solutionsoutweigh standardizedactivities,c) contributionto achievethe collectivegoaloutweighsloyalty andreliability,d) acceptancesforconflictsand discussionsas theyviewed asamethod ofdevelopment(Edwards et al., 2010). This cooperating production takes different forms in the two different perspectives on lean office. It is to a higher degree implemented in the team-based lean office due to its greater focus on the team e.g. by the rotating team leader role and less focus on standardization. The less standardization in team-based lean office, makes it in a sense anti-Tayloristic (Pruijt, 2003).To conclude, how much of cooperating productions that does exists within the neo-Tayloristic approach can be debated (see latter discussion).
In addition to cooperating production marked a lean office by the clear focus on the customerand continuous improvements of the efficiency of the work process in various ways. Different methods are applied to achieve a more efficient work process in the office. Tapping andShuker(2003)means that an extensive review is absolutely necessary in which each step is studied in detail, from the individual level with each employee, through the team level to department level. In this review, the team's total time for the work process is examined by breaking it down from time used per week to daily. Procedures for meeting, lunches, etc. are studied in order to see where time can be "found," and then examines resources in terms of the number of available individuals. This method breaks down the time required for the entire work process into time required per. person in the team, which makes the process easier to overview. The process is visualized on a bulletin board, in the same way as group members´ different views on how to improve the work process is visualized at meetings to clarify the work process and thereby easier find possibilities for improvements. This method - visual planning or kanban-is central in lean office designand includes different methods such as e.g. scrum. Scrum is a term that originates from Rugby, but has been implemented in lean management. It refers to the moment when the ball is in play and the rugby team plays together to bring the ball up the plan by cross-functional teams to reach the goal.
In addition to previous features, the both perspective of Lean Office Design emphasize the need to visualize the work process for the employees by various means to raise awareness of it and thereby facilitate improvements. This is how Tapping and Shuker, which align themselves to the neo-Tayloristicperspective explains it: ̔Applying lean principles in the office means learning to see the flow of business processes in terms of units of work or information̕ (Tapping & Shuker, 2003, p. 49). By highlighting the work process physically, given employees the opportunity to control their own part of the process, therefore must a
aleanofficeby definitionbea"visible office" in their opinion. A visible office is defined by following characteristics: (1) plenty of meeting places where employees can interact and share ideas for work improvements, (2) common standards for storage of work material andlevels ofcurrentcleaningthe office,aso-called5Sprogram and "clean desk policy", (3) job rotation– between employeeswithina team, but sometimesalso betweendifferent teamsordepartments.
The neo-Tayloristic lean office design
The first described perspective on lean office design applies a management approach influenced by Taylor and scientific management (Taylor, 1985), which advocates a "standardized" and minimalistic office design in which the individual is not to leave any personal footprint. This perspectiveis calledneo-Tayloristicleanoffice (Pruijt, 2003)and this isoftenwhat peoplerefers toasaleanoffice(Knight & Haslam, 2010).
This approach to lean office design implies e.g. that: a) personal attributes are taken away from the individual workplaces or from the work place as a whole and only working material directly linked to the work is allowed, b) management marks clearly that it is the one who decides how the office will be designed and used by employees, and finally c) a "standardization" of the office design is pursued to the extent possible. This includes not only the design of furniture, kitchen and pause areas or other facility areas within the office, but also the layout as a whole, including number of rooms with different functions distributed per. department. Even FM-facilities and use of ICT (Information Communication Technology) -systems are included.This standardized approach to office design, where a rational and impersonal approach to the individual workstation and the office as a whole is applied, aims to free up time but also to clarify the focus on professionalism in the business that in the end hopefully will lead to greater efficiency.This means that individuals and institutions are not the controlling factors, instead it is a common standard designed to meet the needs of the organization that is, and this must be kept(Duffy, 1999; Tapping & Shuker, 2002).This strict standardization is not shared with the team-based lean office, which in this sense could somewhat anti-Tayloristic (Pruijt, 2003).
In accordance to Tapping and Shuker(2003), who advocatetheneo-Taylor approach, should a lean office design eliminate the following seven different types of wastes in offices: 1) waste of overproducing, 2) waste of waiting, 3) waste of over processing, (4) waste of inventory, 5) waste of motion, 6) waste of defects or correction, and 7) waste of transport. They describe however only how a few of these wastes will by the physical design of the office be eliminated, these are: waste of inventory, waste of motion and waste of transport.
Waste of inventory (4), which refers to waste in the work process caused by the storage of work material, is by standardized workstation design and equipment limited at both workstations and the office as a whole, according to Tapping and Shuker(Ibid.). In addition to this, can storage of work material be limited by a digital storage instead of physical storage, but also by applying the 5S system, a system that aims to bring order and limit waste of space at the workstation developed by Toyota.Work material is only to be stored in limited locations within the office, since each time material is moved from one location to another time is wasted. This should be done at: workstations, reference library for each team or department, and final storage at the archive. The second waste described by Tapping and Shukeris waste of motion (5), i.e. unnecessary motion within the workspace. This may, in their view, belimited byacentralplacement ofcommonofficeequipment such as typewritersstations, copy machines, etc.They sometimes find it beneficial to have more of these common stations within the office than what is required in order to cut down employees' movement around the office during the work day. Waste of transport (7) should finally be avoided by an architectural design that focuses on an efficient logistic system of goods within the office.
The main focus in the neo-Tayloristic approach to lean office is the work process. This is also in focus in the team-based lean office, however not to the same extent. The flow of the work process is thus reviewed carefully by the frequency of delivery of data and waiting for data from colleagues and other providers in the process. The office design isin accordance with this perspective a tool to achieve and maintain an efficient work process.
The main focus of the neo-Tayloristic approach of lean office is the work process. It is recognized as important in the team-based lean office as well, however not to the same extent. Here, the flow of work carefully examines according to frequency of delivery of data and waits for data from colleagues and other providers in the process. In accordance with the neo-Taylorstic approach is office design a tool to achieve and maintain an efficient work process.
The team-based lean office design
The other perspective on lean office design – the team-based lean office – has its main focus on the team and how it can be used to encourage problem solving and learning in organizations. The team is viewed as a key component to shorten lead times and make the work more efficient, combined with other components such as creativity (Ekvall, 1996) and leadership (Emiliani, 2008).
To enable the team-based lean office is a new employee's role necessary, the so-called "authoritative producer," that means more power and responsibility on both the individual and team level(Edwards et al., 2010). This new employee's role implies responsibility for the conduct of its work, but also the planning and development as well as the incorporation of the own work in the team's work process. It also implies a new role for the supervisor, who takes a step back and avoid micro-management of the work and instead take overall responsibility. The team-based lean office involves a rotation of the role as the team leader. The role of authoritative producer emphasizes the individual employee's effort as important for the team'swork without the team'sroleis reduced.This work method is based on relational coordination, i.e. the quality of work is dependent on relationships, which in turn is based on clear common goals(P. Hines, M. Holweg, & N. Rich, 2004).A prerequisite for thisis, in turn, social capital in the form ofgood relationsbetween employeesand betweenemployees and managers. Leadership isa key component ofthis type oflearning organizations(Emiliani, 2008)and we know thatthe"presentleadership"is exercisedthrough thespontaneousandinformal meetingswithin an organization(Kotter, 1982). These spontaneous and informal meetings take place in an office at so-called "activity nodes," which is places that generates activity(Bechtel, 1976). To enable present leadership in an organization, it is therefore important in the team-based lean office, that the office architecture creates the physical conditions for meetings and interaction to take place.
Discussion and Summary
Problematization of lean and its application in office design
There are problems with how to apply the lean concept to office design due to the fact that there are several different implications to the concept (P. Hines et al., 2004), which makes it hard to know what is referred to when lean office design is discussed. In addition to this, lean is in itself very contradicting due to the use of the team concept, a fundamental component in lean that is interpreted differently by different actors. The term did not exist in Toyota Production System, from where lean originates, but was introduced by Womack, Jones and Roos (2007) to understand the successful Toyota Production System when they launched “lean production” in 1990 (Pruijt, 2003). According to Pruijt (Ibid.)was the term introduced due to its association to medical teams, sport teams and teams of scientists, although in many cases it was not how the term was applied when introduced in factories and offices, but it wasoftenrathera way toimprove productivitythrough increasedcompetition amongmembers in a team, butalsobetween different teams.This approach is found in the found in the neo-Tayloristic lean office that uses bonus systems to increase productivity.
Womack, Jones and Roos(2007) describe lean production as method to learn professional skills and apply these creatively in a team setting rather than in a rigid hierarchy (Womack et al., 2007). The earlier described cooperating production, is one of the characteristics of lean that aims to break hierarchies by applying more horizontal than a vertical control(Edwards et al., 2010). Besides this, it overweighs achieving collective goals towards loyalty and reliability, and holds great acceptance for conflicts and discussions since they viewed as improvement methods.Despite cooperating production being fundamental to lean, some of these fundamental components of cooperating productionare hard to find in the neo-Tayloristic lean office. This is due to: a) its strong emphasis on standardization of the work process that is related to reliability, but according to cooperating production should be of less importance than collective goals, but also to b) the non-rotating team leader role in the neo-Tayloristic approach. This implies a hierarchical order in the team, since the team leader reports to department manager and thereby achieves a higher hierarchical position in relation to the other team members.
It is evident that it is not all clear what lean office design is.The two identified perspectives on lean office design emphasize different aspects of lean, aspects that often seemto stand in direct opposition to one another. An adequate question is therefore if they only are two different approaches to office design that only share the same goal – to use the office design as a tool to increase productivity in the work process. Because one could argue that they beside the same goal are too different to be claimed to be different perspectives on the same issue. The answer to the question is not evident. In this paper, we choose however to emphasize the similarities rather than differences, and regard them thus as different sides of the same coin, although we recognize the dilemma of doing this.