The ongoing evolution in the design of the places we work has much in common with evolution in the natural world. But whereas natural selection is dependent on its ‘Blind Watchmaker’ to indirectly shape creatures in response to the constantly changing forces in their environment own, office design is anything but blind – at least it is when done intelligently and with insight. To push this metaphor a bit further, evolutionary theory suggests that it is no great surprise that similar although unrelated natural forms develop in different parts of the world. So, what sort of animal is pictured at the top of this page? Obviously it’s a trick question or I wouldn’t ask. It’s a tenrec, a native of Madagascar, some species of which look almost exactly like a hedgehog. Even though the two animals share no common ancestors, they have evolved very similar forms in response to similar challenges in their environment. The fact they look so similar is a coincidence but one that is to some degree inevitable.
It sounds a reasonable and familiar enough idea and so we find similar office design principles and forms – both in terms of product and interior design – being developed independently around the world in response to the challenges we all share.
It is here that our analogy starts to unravel. Whereas animals have evolved in at least some degree of geographical isolation, workplace design is influenced not only by local forces but those that are shared globally and by what designers see elsewhere.
There has been a tendency for some commentators to bemoan this, claiming that it leads to a homogenisation of design and our surroundings, but I am not so certain things are as simple as that. For one thing cultures still vary in many ways and local markets are likely to be influenced by what has gone before. While we all face broadly the same challenges in managing technology, communications and economic conditions, the prevailing culture in different regions does not inevitably drive the same results in terms of design.
The meteor strikes
That is why America still has its residual cubicles and cubicle-derivative products and, along with parts of mainland Europe, still sees the open plan per se as revolutionary while other parts of the world see it as mainstream or even old hat. ( A fact also worth bearing in mind when you consider the debate about open plan. What is meant by the term is different in the US and Europe, as are the arguments about their merits and drawbacks.)
The creation of these local ecosystems means that studies such as this recent report defining a set of international space standards for commercial buildings can only be read in context. Even then, it’s an increasingly futile exercise, given the constantly shifting parameters and introduction of game changing principles such as coworking.