GLOSARIO DE DEFINICIONES
EL RIESGO ES NO ACEPTAB LEN : MEDIDAS NORMALES DE PROTECCIÓN
3 extintores de CO2 al menos la clase 6A, distribuidos conforme el Anexo VII, Mapa VII
A crucial task in the m anagem ent o f space is to identify recurrent problem situations and their expected time frames o f occurrence, and to prepare possible managem ent responses which can be applied to restore the balance in supply and dem and as circumstances change. Take for example the circum stances o f opportunities for change created and superim posed from the original concept in Figure 5.1, which are illustrated in Figure 7.7 below.
Figure 7.7: O pportunities for change, using the occupancy and frequency matrix No n co in cid en t S P A C E C oi nc id en t Satellite office i i Traditional office Virtual office D r o p - i n facilities C oi nc id en t N on coi ncident T I M E
Source: A d ap te d from. Nutt. (1997).
G r o u p G R O U P S I Z E 2/6 3/4 Individual ► 1/5 S h o rt- te rm Long-t erm D l R .A TI O N
There are six opportunities for change and in each circum stance, these need to be managed in terms o f space and time. It incorporates all the previous issues already discussed under m anagem ent responses. The proxy measure for the manageability issue is utilisation, the interrelationship between the number o f occupancies o f group sizes and the duration o f activities in terms o f frequency. The question is, what will management do to change;
1. from the long-term use o f individual, traditional offices to short-term use o f individual drop-in facilities?
2. from the long-term use o f group, traditional offices to short-term use o f group drop-in facilities?
3. from the long-term use o f individual and fixed location, traditional offices to individuals' m ulti-location virtual offices?
4. from multi-location virtual offices back to long-term individual, fixed location traditional offices?
5. from the short-term use o f individual drop-in facilities, back to long-term individual, traditional offices? and
6. from the short-term use o f group drop-in facilities, back to long-term use o f group, traditional offices?
Theoretically, in the first situation, the managem ent o f change is achieved through timetabling, booking systems or arrangem ents on a first-com e-first-served basis (see Figure 6.2, Chapter 6.0 and Table 1.1 in A ppendix 1, A3). The method focuses on reallocation procedure, such that dedicated and individually assigned spaces no longer predominate. Instead a sharing procedure is motivated. These initiatives will inevitably create subsequent problems. For example, what will m anagem ent do when all o f the currently available spaces are fully occupied?
In the second situation, the m anagement o f change is achieved through centralising facilities (see Table 6.2). This method involves a design approach, such as ‘non- territoriaf spaces and is m anaged by block-booking and tim etabling rooms. However, these initiatives could potentially create problem s which relate to the build-up o f queues, due to over-booking in certain periods or the idling o f facilities when bookings are forfeited at short notice.
In the third situation, the managem ent o f change is achieved through facilitating em ployees through the use o f IT support systems such as lap-tops, cordless phones, etc. This is com plemented by the endorsement o f work program m ing arrangem ents which enable employees to work in multi-venue spaces. This entails individuals having to completely relinquish their own dedicated workspace allocation and obtain the appropriate support at all other locations. U nder this initiative, the anticipated problem is one o f maintaining effective remote human resource managem ent and the connectivity o f the em ployees with other levels o f the organisation.
In the fourth situation, the managem ent o f change is achieved through the consolidation o f resource facilities in various locations. This procedure involves the reorganisation o f the facility spaces and this entails m anaging the transform ation o f com mon spaces so that they become dedicated spaces. This entails adopting the assignment method o f allocation as practised in the traditional method. Under this initiative, the main problem is in sustaining the level o f predictability o f the individual's work arrangem ent to justify the change in rules o f utilisation.
In the fifth situation, the m anagem ent o f change is easily recognisable through the workplace design strategy. Past practices have recognised the use o f enclosed spaces as a form o f long-term use o f dedicated space. In recent times, design strategies in the use o f demountable partitions and screens are becom ing more prevalent. Under this initiative, the anticipated problem is the level o f tolerance from the managem ent towards time over-runs o f activities, which need to be accom m odated before the next change is implemented.
In the sixth situation, the managem ent o f change is achieved through the availability o f com mon space and team offices. An innovation in this form o f management is the use o f the charge back system (see Figure 6.2). This means that groups are charged according to their use o f space, instead o f the normal annual allocation routines. Under this initiative, the main problem is how to ensure spaces are marketed enough to be profitable to the management.
Each o f these situations is not easily distinguished in practice because it occurs dynamically, affecting the variables simultaneously. The proxy measure to gain the information o f m anagement responses according to the situations they experienced,
accom m odate changes and what future initiatives will be taken to respond to change. The next section will focus on the developm ent o f the research m ethodology which will com plem ent and support theoretical deductions from literature study and from the grounded data.
References
Abercombie, N. et al, 1974, The University in an Urban Environment: A Study o f
Activity Patterns fro m a Planning Viewpoint. Joint Unit for Planning Research,
London: Heinem ann Educational.
Alexei M armot Associates, 1993, “Improving Space U tilisation at Bedfont Lakes”, SOS Survey M arch 1993, Internal Report, London: IBM.
Anderson, J., 1971, “Space-time budgets and activity studies in urban geography and planning”. Environment and Planning, 3. pp.353-368.
Apgar, M., 1993, “Uncovering your hidden occupancy costs”, in H arvard Business Review, M ay-June, p p .124-136.
Apgar, M., 1995, “M anaging real estate to build value”, in H arvard Business RevieM’.
N ovem ber-Decem ber, p p .162-179.
BBC, 1965. The People's Activities. Statistics o f what people are doing h a lf hour by
h a lf hour fro m six thirty a.m. until midnight, London: British Broadcasting
Corporation, Audience Research Department.
Becker, F. & Joroff, M., 1995, Reinventing the Workplace, Atlanta: International Developm ent Research Council.
Becker, P., 1993b, “The Ecology o f N ew Ways o f W orking: N on-Territorial O ffices”, in Site Selection and Development. 38(1). p p .147-153.
Becker, P., et al, 1991, “M anaging Space Efficiently”, in International Facility
M anagem ent Program, Final Sum mary Report, Ithaca: Cornell University.
Becker, P., 1990, The Total Workplace: Facilities M anagem ent A n d The Elastic
Organisation, New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Bevans, G., 1913, How working men spend their spare time, PhD. Thesis, University o f Columbia.
Binder. S., 1989, Corporate Facilities Planning: A n Inside View f o r Designers and
Managers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
British Airways Office Guidelines, 1992, Planning Primer. London: British Airways.
Bullock. N., 1974. “M odelling The Demand for Teaching Space”, in Environment and Planning B. 1. pp.69-103.
Bullock, N., 1970, An Approach to the Sim ulation o f Activities: An University Example, Land Use and Built From Studies, D epartm ent o f Architecture, Cam bridge: University o f Cambridge, W orking paper 21.
Bullock, N., et al, 1968, A Theoretical Basis fo r University Planning, Land Use and Built Form Studies, Departm ent o f Architecture, Report No. 1, Cambridge: U niversity o f Cambridge.
Chadwick, A.. 1993, “Space/Time O ffice'’, in Facilities, 117. pp.21-27.
Chapin, F. Jr., 1974, Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things People Do in Time
and In Space, New York: Wiley Interscience.
Converse, P., 1968. ‘T im e budgets’’, in Sills, D., (ed). International Encyclopaedia o f
Social Sciences, New York: Macmillan.
Cullen, L, & Godson, V., 1974, “U rban N etw orks: The Structure o f A ctivity Patterns”, in Progressive Planning, 4 (1 ), pp. 1-96.
Cullen, L, & Phelps, E.. 1975, Diary Techniques and The Problems o f Urban Life,
Final report to the Social Science Research Council, London: SSRC.
Currie, R., 1977, Work Study, 4th ed.. Revised by Joseph E. Faraday, London: Pitman.
Das, T., 1991, “Time: The hidden dim ension in strategic planning”, in Long Range Planning, 24(3). pp. 49-57.
DEGW & Teknibank, 1992. The Intelligent Building In Europe: Executive Summary.
British Council for Offices, Occasional Paper.
Digital. 1993, Digital A nnual Review 1993, London: Digital.
Doidge. C.. 1972, University Space U tilisation, PhD. Thesis, University o f London. Duffy. F., 1995. “Accomm odating C hange”, in Flexible Working. 1(1). pp.25-27.
The Eclipse Group, 1995, “W orkstyle 2000”, in Facilities Management: M anagem ent Guide No 9, N ovem ber 1995, pp.5-10.
Eley, J.. & M armot, A., 1995. U nderstanding Offices: What Every M anager S hould
Know about Office Buildings. London: Penguin Books.
Ellwood. H.. 1993, “Offices”, in M etric Handbook, Tutt, P. & Adler, D. (eds), London: Butterworth.
Gersick, C., 1988, “Time and transition in work teams: Tow ard a new model o f group developm ent,” in Academ y o f M anagement Journal, 31(1), pp. 9-41.
Grant, C., 1985, Organisational Structure o f Facility M anagem ent in Relationship to Rate o f Facility Change, PhD. Dissertation, U niversity o f M ichigan.
Fledges, B., 1974, “Tim e-Budgets”, m S o c ia l Trends, N o.5. pp. 35-44
Hunt, J., 1996, “Vacancy rate o f 10% revealed by costs survey”, in Property Week. 7 March, p .l 1.
Huws, U., 1993, Teleworking In Britain: A Report To the Em ploym ent Department,
Em ployment Department, Research Series No. 18, O ctober 1993.
IFMA. 1994, Benchmarks II, Research Report 1, Houston: International Facility M anagem ent Association.
Laing, A., 1996, “Directions for change: The separation o f office design for users”, in
Facilities M anagement, 3(6). p p .18-19.
Lawson, D.. 1991, "M ercury on the M ove”, in Office, Autum n, p p .16-17.
Little. S., 1987. “The Role o f Time Frames in Design D ecision-M aking”, in Design Studies, 8(3), July.
Lloyd. B.. 1993, "The Future o f Offices and Office W ork”, in Duffy, F., et al, (eds).
Responsible Workplace: The Redesign o f Work and Office. London: Butterworth
Estates Gazette, pp. 44-54.
M cLocklin, N.. 1996, “Trends in Office Usage, Project M anager in BT W orkstyle 2000”. in H alf day Seminar o f Corporate Telework in Action, 1 May. 1996. London: Telework Events Ltd.
Mills. R.. 1973, “The Time Budget Study. Appendix 3”, in Young, M. & Willmott, P. (eds). The Sym m etrical Family: A Study o f Work and Leisure in the London Region.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
M intzberg, H., 1979. “An emerging strategy o f “D irect” research”, in Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 24, p. 24.
National Advisory Council on Education For Industry and Commerce, 1968, A Report On The Use O f Buildings and Equipment, Com m ittee on the More Effective Use o f Technical College Resources, London: HMSO.
National Audit Office, 1996, Space M anagem ent in Higher Education: A G ood Practice Guide, London: National Audit Office.
Nutt, B., 1997, Flexible Working: The Changing Environm ent Conference, N otes:C hairm an’s Introduction and Summation, 18th April, London:SBIM .
Nutt, B., 1992, “Facility M anagement: The Basis for A ppplications Research, Facilities M anagem ent Research D irections”, Barrett. P. (ed), Second International
Symposium on Facilities Management, Salford: University o f Salford.
Nutt. B., 1993a, MSc. FEM, Notes M odule 3.4.1, London: UCL, Unpublished. Nutt. B.. 1993b, MSc. FEM, Notes M odule 2.2.1, London: UCL, Unpublished.
Nutt, B., 1988, “The Strategic Design O f Buildings”, in Long Range Planning, 21(4).
p p .130-140.
Nutt. B.. 1970. “Failure Planning”, m A rchitectural Design, September, pp.469-471.
Nuffield Foundation, 1961, The Design O f Research Laboratories, the Report o f a Study carried out by the Division for Architectural Studies o f the N uffield Foundation. London: Oxford University Press.
Penn. A. & Vaughn, L., 1995. Refurbishment o f Sm ithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals: Report on Spatial Analysis M ovem ent Study S ta ff Contacts, Analysis o f Design Proposal, 22nd May, London: Space Syntax Ltd.
Rawlinson. C.. 1984. “ Space Utilisation Studies-Yesterday and T oday”, in Powell. A, Cooper. 1. & Lera, S (eds), D esigning For Building Utilisation, London: E. & F.N.Spon. pp. 23-39.
Rawlinson. C., 1982, Space Allocation and TimeTabling System For Tertiary Institutions o f Education, London: Departm ent o f Education and Science.
Rawlinson, C.. 1973, Activity Space M anagem ent. PhD. Thesis. Architecture. University o f London.
Sorokin. P. & Berger. C., 1939, Time Budgets O f Human Behaviour, Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stansall. P.. 1993, "M anaging Change in the Organisation and Layout o f Em ploym ent Services Job Centres”, in Property M anagement, 11(1). pp. 17-30.
Szalai. A.. 1966, “Trends in Comparative Tim e-Budget Research”, in Am erican Behavioural Scientist, 9. pp.3-8.
Thomson, T., 1997, “The Changing Work Environm ent”, in Flexible Working: The
Changing Environment Conference Proceedings, 18th April, London: SBIM.
Toland, S., 1996, “M aking Space Strategies w ork”, in Facilities M anagement, 4(1), p p .13-15.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1967a, The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Introductory Note 3, April, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1967b, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Introductory Paper 4, November, London: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1968a, The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Report 5, February, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1968b, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Analysis o f Space and Facilities: Com puter Programm e Report 7
October, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1968c, The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Report 6 October. London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1969a, The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Report 9 Leicester University, Novem ber, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1969b. The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Report Sussex University, A ugust, London: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1969c. The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Paper 2 Prelim inaries and Findings and Proposals, October. London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1969d, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Report 10 City University. N ovem ber, London: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG. Unit for A rchitectural Studies. 1969e. The Use o f Space and Facilities in Universities, Room Classification Report 16 September, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1970a, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Library Utilisation Report 14, M ay, London: Bartlett School o f
A rchitecture, UCL.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1970b, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Refectory Utilisation Report 15, June, London: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1971a, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, Paper 3 Dynamic Space Allocation June, London: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies. 1971b, The Use o f Space and Facilities in
Universities, North Am erican Visit Paper 4 February, UCL: Bartlett School o f
Architecture.
UCERG, Unit for Architectural Studies, 1974a, Space Utilisation, M anagem ent and Planning Techniques For Educational Buildings, Part II: Activities, Section 2: Time Tabled Activity Surveys, London: Baitlett School o f Architecture.
UCERG Unit for Architectural Studies, 1974b, O xford Polytechnic, Report 17. M arch, London: Bartlett School o f Architecture.
Varcoe, B., 1995, "A Demanding C hallenge”, in Flexible Working, 1(1). pp.8-11.
Vischer, J., 1995, “Strategic W ork-Space Planning”, in Sloan M anagem ent Review,
Fall. pp.33-42.
The W inchester Group., 1990. The Square M ile 1990, London: The W inchester Group.
Williams. B.. 1993. “The Econom ics o f Environmental Services”, in Facilities. 11 (11). pp.13-23.
CHAPTER 8.0 DEVELOPING THE SPA C E -T IM E M ANAG EM ENT