The physical office environment in technical services in ARL libraries

Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcats

The physical office environment in technical services in ARL libraries Lihong Zhu 1 Washington State University Libraries, P.O. Box 645610, Pullman, WA 99164-5610, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 3 October 2013 Keywords: Physical office environment Technical services ARL libraries Office layout Office comfort

a b s t r a c t In 2012, the authors conducted a survey on the satisfaction level of librarians and staff in technical services in ARL libraries towards their physical office environment and their perceptions on whether physical office environment had an impact on their job satisfaction, privacy, productivity, communication and collaboration. The authors analyzed the survey results and answered three research questions. This paper will provide some understanding about the physical office environment in library technical services and the survey results will be useful for both architects and library administrators when planning and designing physical office environment in library technical services. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction An office often refers to a room or an area where people conduct clerical, professional or business activities. Offices can be either traditional that are enclosed with walls and occupied by one or a small number of people (also called enclosed or cellular offices), or open plan offices that lack interior walls and are occupied by a comparatively large number of people in a large, open space. Library employees often spend the majority of work time in the physical office environment in technical services. The physical office environment is one factor that can affect their job satisfaction and productivity. “The main purpose of an office environment is to support its occupants in performing their job — preferably at minimum cost and to maximum satisfaction. With different people performing different tasks and activities, however, it is not always easy to select the right office spaces” (Office, 2013). “Companies regularly invest in technology and employee development programs in the implicit belief that some of this investment will translate into competitive advantage. Similarly, the facility and workplace is an additional ‘lever’ that management can pull to enhance performance” (O'Neill, 2007, Introduction). An efficient physical office environment will result in a number of benefits to the organization since it affects how much satisfaction employees derive from their jobs, affects the impression individuals get out of the organization's work areas, provides effective allocation and use of the building's floor space, provides employees with efficient, productive work areas, facilitates the expansion and rearrangement of work areas when the need arises, and facilitates employee supervision (Office Layout, 2001). There has been a significant body of research on physical office environment, but the authors did not find any significant research on physical office environment in library literature. The authors did not find any research on physical office environment in technical services in libraries in both architecture literature and library literature. To fill in this gap, in 2012, the authors conducted a survey on the satisfaction level of technical services librarians and staff in Association of Research Libraries (ARL)

1

E-mail address: [email protected]. Fax: +1 509 335 9589.

1464-9055/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2013.09.001

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

43

institutions towards their physical office environment and their perception on whether physical office environment affected their job satisfaction, privacy, productivity, communication and collaboration. The survey sought to answer the following research questions about the technical services librarians and staff in ARL libraries: • How do they spend their work time and conduct communication in their physical office environment? What types of office layouts do they have? Do they think that their office layouts meet their various work needs? • What is their satisfaction level towards their physical office environment? What are their attitudes towards some of the current issues in physical office environment? What are their perceptions on whether physical office environment affects their job satisfaction, privacy, productivity, communication and collaboration? • How will the above findings impact the planning and designing of the physical office environment in technical services in libraries? 2. Literature review Physical office environment and its impact on job satisfaction, privacy, productivity, communication and collaboration has been a research topic in many disciplines; however, there has been no significant research conducted on such topics in library and information science literature. There has been no research on physical office environment in technical services in libraries in both architecture literature and library literature. Bodin, Rönn, and Danielsson (2008) pointed out that the research on the effect of physical office environment on the individual ranged over a broad spectrum, including psychology, occupational and environmental medicine, business management, and architecture. “It is important to bring together the different disciplines so that we may have an opportunity to measure and access the influence of the physical office environment on the employee. In other words, an interdisciplinary approach is essential. It is also important to apply a holistic view to the office environment, since it is the totality of different factors that constitute the actual office environment.” A multidisciplinary review of the factors affecting productivity was collected in Creating the Productive Workplace (Clements-Croome, 2006). The book is a valuable contribution to the argument that productivity at work bears a close relationship to work environment. “The flexible arrangement of space and responsible environmental control systems are all-important. At a basic level, the building enclosure is another layer of sensory clothing providing stimuli for our visual, aural, olfactory, tactile and gustatory senses. Bland architecture fails to provide those conditions of light, sound, indoor air quality, temperature and freshness which lift the spirits and which enable us to do better work. Human-oriented design means not only gains for individuals but for business organizations too” (Clements-Croome, 2006, p. xxvii). Another multidisciplinary review was collected in Measuring Workplace Performance (O'Neill, 2007), which used the data in various case studies to demonstrate credible links between workplace design features, and human performance and business outcomes. “Some organizations follow a workplace strategy that emphasizes cost reduction, or ease of facility management. These organizations have a point of view that the physical workplace does not influence performance or business effectiveness. Unfortunately, these companies miss the opportunity to use workplace design to address business objectives related to creating effective workplaces, such as: using the workplace to enhance sense of community in employees, to reflect corporate ‘brand,’ to increase collaboration, communication, innovation, or to increase the speed and efficiency of business processes” (O'Neill, 2007, Introduction). Davis, Leach, and Clegg (2011) collated and synthesized from various sources the findings of research on employees' reaction to and interactions with their workplace from the angles of benefits and risks of open plan offices, individual and contextual factors affecting open plan offices, form of the evolving office, design and redesign of workspace, and future directions of office design. Gensler, a global architecture, design, planning and consulting firm, has conducted many research projects related to workspace. In their 2006 survey on workplace in the United States, Gensler found that 90% of American workers believed that better workplace design and layout resulted in better employee performance (Gensler, 2006). In their 2008 survey on workplace in the United States, Gensler created an insight into the day-to-day knowledge workplace activities that produced business success — the four work modes (focus, collaborate, learn, and socialize). The survey showed that “the physical work environment is an asset with specific and quantifiable impact on business success. The results showed that top-performance companies – those with high profits – have significantly higher-performing work environments than average companies” (Gensler, 2008a). In 2008, Gensler conducted another survey on workspace in the United Kingdom and the survey results showed that work environment had a fundamental impact on recruitment, retention, productivity and ultimately on the organization's ability to achieve its business strategy” (Gensler, 2008b). In 2007, Gensler launched a large-scale survey looking at how people work in the workplace. From 2007 to 2012, Gensler surveyed individuals from the world's top companies to understand their work patterns and work environments. The resulting database of more than 90,000 people from 155 companies across 10 industries showed that the most significant factor in workplace effectiveness was not collaboration but individual focus work; workplace strategies that sacrificed individual focus in pursuit of collaboration would result in decreased effectiveness for both. Gensler's findings pointed to a trend towards future workplace design — to create “a place that will balance spaces for people to engage in extended periods of uninterrupted focus work with an ability to seamlessly engage in informal, formal and virtual collaboration” (Gensler, 2012). Knoll, known internationally for creating workplace furnishing, also conducted research on links between workspace design and human behavior, health and performance, and the quality of the user experience. Its research topics included design of activity space, design for integrated work, design of open plan and enclosed private offices, proportional planning for adaptable workplace, and evaluation of the success of workplace design (Knoll, 2013). Knoll (2008) reviewed research on open plan and enclosed private offices related to a variety of behavioral and technical issues. Their key findings include: (1) The preference for open plan or enclosed private offices is based on work styles and the type of work the individual

44

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

performs. (2) Employees who are more satisfied with their office environments are also more satisfied with their jobs, suggesting a role for the office environment in organizational well-being and effectiveness. (3) Enclosed private offices communicate higher status than open plan workspaces. (4) Workspace designed to foster group work has a positive impact on business process time and cost. Simply placing employees in an open plan environment designed for collaboration without training or re-designing work processes will not produce the best performance gains. (5) The current practice of locating more experienced staff in enclosed private offices, while increasing their comfort level, could reduce learning and development opportunities for younger employees and carry the risk of allowing older workers' skills and development to atrophy if they lose the benefit of being pushed by younger staff to learn new skills and think in new ways about problems. (6) Today's workplace is characterized by a desire for cost effectiveness, high density, and flexibility, workers with different levels of mobility and work styles, and a sophisticated technology infrastructure. All of those issues can be addressed in a more cost effective manner by open plan workspace than enclosed private offices (Knoll, 2008). The main body of journal literature evaluating the effect of physical office environment on employees mostly fell under two categories: how the space itself functions and how specific environmental qualities (such as lighting, indoor air quality, acoustics, noise level and temperature) perform. “Of those on the performance of the space itself, studies on office types with different layouts have been the majority. The term office layout means how the arrangement and boundaries of workspaces are laid out, which can determine the type of offices as well as performance of a space laid out in a particular arrangement and boundary” (Lee, 2010, pp. 1594–1600). The literature on how the space itself functions revolved around two main debates: open plan versus enclosed offices, and the matching of the office environment to the work processes (Haynes, 2008). “Open plan is the generic term used in architectural and interior design for any floor plan which makes use of large, open spaces and minimizes the use of small, enclosed rooms such as private offices” (Open Plan, 2013). Open plan offices have been in existence for a long time. They became more popular in the 1970s due to the belief that open plan offices would lead to better communication, collaboration and productivity. “Many organizations have pushed their employees to get out of individual and private territories, and to interact with each other for the informal flow of information by reducing the size of individual workspaces and creating open plan offices” (Lee, 2010, p. 1595). However, many research projects on the effect of open plan offices found frequent negative effects including lack of visual privacy and acoustic isolation, high levels of noise and distraction, and increased stress and conflict, which in turn lead to low productivity and less job satisfaction (Arieff, 2012; Cain, 2012; Hoare, 2012; Paul, 2012). “Distractions – visual, noise or always-on technology – abound in the contemporary office. Providing ample private spaces to get away and think is one strategy companies use to balance out the negatives of open-office plans” (Gensler, 2012). Lee (2010) showed that differences existed in employee satisfaction and perceived job performance levels regarding privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality issues in personal spaces among five office types: enclosed private, enclosed shared, high cubicle, low cubicle, and bullpen. An interesting finding in the study was that the high cubicle offices showed significantly lower employee satisfaction and perceived job performance than the other office types. In the study conducted by Bodin et al. (2008), 491 people employed by 26 companies were analyzed with reference to self-reported health status, job satisfaction and perception of the physical office environment. The results were compared among different types of offices — cell office (private room), shared room (2– 3 people/room), flexible office (no workplace of one's own), combination office (team-based office type), and open plan office (4–9 people/room, 10–24 people/room, N 24 people/room). In regard to health status, flexible and cell offices had much better results than the others; the worst reported health status occurred in open plan offices. In regard to job satisfaction, flexible and shared offices were the best; the worst were combined and open plan offices. As to perceptions of the physical office environment, employees who worked in cell offices were best satisfied with their physical office environment — it was only when the social aspects of the office were considered that they were dissatisfied; best satisfied with the support given by the office for community spirit and interaction were those working in flexible offices; the worst rating with respect to content was received by open plan offices with more than 9 people (Bodin et al., 2008). Saji, Kato, Matsumoto, Naka, and Yamaguchi (2006) conducted a study to define the indexes to evaluate the activating communications in the office space to find the relations between office layout and communications. They used two office layouts for the study: common office layout plan and activating communications office layout plan. Most of the ratio for the activating communication layout office is higher than the one for the common layout office (Saji et al., 2006). Parkin, Austin, Pinder, Baguley, and Allenby (2011) used case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of two different academic office environments in supporting collaboration and privacy. In Environment A, employees' desks were in shared/open areas and they had access to other facilities which provided privacy for individuals to work; and in Environment B, employees' desks were in individual offices and they had access to additional shared/open work settings. “The designs of the two academic offices both sought to manage the conflicting demands of privacy and collaboration through the provision of a variety of activity settings. Yet, the two environments achieved starkly contrasting results in terms of occupant satisfaction — the post-occupancy evaluation of Environment A suggests that its academic occupants are largely dissatisfied with their work environment, whereas that of Environment B indicates high levels of satisfaction” (Parkin et al., 2011, p. 43). Team space is an alternative office design to support the activities of highly interactive teams. The design often provides individual workspaces for private, concentrated work combined with nearby shared open spaces that support group work. Lechner (2012) provided three ways to restructure the office space to better support people work together — varying the types of workspaces, providing the right tools and giving project teams a dedicated space. Among various types of communication for team work, face-to-face communication has the advantage of providing direct contact with people as well as the presence of all the non-verbal cues such as facial expression, gestures, body language, tone of voice, presence of other people and room noise. “If there is something missing in the person's words, there are other cues that will complement the message, if they are congruent with the words. The message will be more complete and clear when all cues are present” (Face to Face Communication, 2010). Wolfeld (2010) conducted a survey to investigate the effects of the workplace characteristics of integration, physical distance and

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

45

visibility on impromptu interactions and three outcome measurements (job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment). The survey results supported the significant positive relationship between accessibility and frequency of interactions, and showed that informal and unplanned interactions were positively correlated (though not significantly) with all three outcome measures. He recommended that office layout be designed to foster informal, impromptu interactions and thus encourage face-to-face interactions. There are two ways to increase the probability of impromptu interactions and ease of communication within an office — movement control and spatial interconnectedness (including distance between employees, employee visibility and employee location). Mak and Lui (2012, pp. 339–345) examined the effect of sound on office productivity and explored the relationship between changes in office productivity and noise sources as well as five other factors — temperature, air quality, office layout, sound, and lighting. Oseland, Marmot, Swaffer, and Ceneda (2011) conducted a two-year research project which involved a literature review followed by field studies, and made recommendations for preferred environments suited for different purposes of interactions including sharing information, making decisions, resolving problems, generating ideas, and socializing. In terms of physical space and facilities, they identified the following as the necessity to provide — control of temperature control and air quality; adequate daylight, and control of daylight especially when using data projection; good acoustics to eliminate transmission of sound between rooms or noise from outside; well designed and flexible furniture that can be easily reconfigured; essential basic equipment and accessories, such as IT and AV; sufficient circulation space, within and outside the room, and an appropriate room size/shape; the appropriate level of technology, with well designed controls, and sufficient instruction and training in how to use it; and way finding, easily located rooms and clear labeling (Oseland et al., 2011, pp. 60–61). 3. Research methods In May 2012, the authors conducted a survey among technical services librarians and staff in ARL libraries; see Appendix A in Supplementary data. For this survey, “technical services is defined as library functional areas that are responsible for selecting, acquiring, organizing, processing, and providing access to library collections in all formats, as opposed to the delivery of public services” (Zhu, 2011, p. 72). This survey applied to both centralized and non-centralized technical services. The survey questionnaire consisted of twenty questions on various subjects — respondent demographics, work time, communication, office layout, office comfort, current issues, and impact of physical office environment. The answers to the first nineteen questions were mandatory. Some questions required respondents to select all responses that applied; and other questions required respondents to choose only one answer. Seventeen questions provided the opportunity to add information beyond the choices provided in the survey. The last question was open-ended to provide an opportunity for respondents to add comments. The survey was voluntary and respondents could withdraw from it at any time. Unless otherwise specified, the percentage quoted in this paper indicated a percentage of an individual question's responses rather than a percentage of the total survey respondents. The percentage was rounded to one decimal point in tables and appendixes; thus, percentages in tables and appendixes might not total 100% due to rounding or question format. The target population of the survey was technical services librarians and staff currently working in ARL libraries. The authors identified the target population by browsing the public websites of ARL libraries in May 2012 and found email contact information of 3389 technical services librarians and staff currently working in the 119 ARL libraries. Due to restricted access to staff information at some of those websites, the authors could not find any contact information at seven ARL libraries, and could only find email contact information of part of the technical services librarians and staff at fourteen ARL libraries. In May 2012, the authors sent email invitations to the 3389 identified potential survey respondents. The email invitation provided a link to the survey hosted through SurveyMonkey (a free online survey and questionnaire tool). Although the survey allowed multiple responses per computer, a person could only respond to the survey once. Respondents could return to previous pages in the survey and update existing responses until the survey was finished or until they exited the survey. The survey was open from May 1 to July 15, 2012. Among the 3389 potential survey respondents, 498 (15%) responded to the survey. Among the 498 survey respondents, 358 (72%) answered all questions. The author used SurveyMonkey to collect responses and perform most of the statistical analysis. All 498 responses were analyzed. Because not all respondents answered all the questions and some questions allowed more than one answer, the total number of responses for each question may be fewer or more than 498. For the population size of 3000–4000, the recommended sample size (based on 95% confidence level and ±5% margin of error) is 341–351 (Sample Size, 2002). The authors are confident that this survey has an effective sample size. Since the sample size is under 500 and does not justify reporting tenths of one percentage, the authors rounded the percentages in the tables and appendixes from one decimal point to whole numbers in their survey analysis. 4. Survey analysis 4.1. Respondent demographics Out of the 498 respondents, only 28% were managers; see Table 1. Survey respondents were from various technical services functional areas; see Table 2. Because most respondents were working in more than one functional area, they could check as many choices as applied. Based on comments, some respondents also had responsibilities in non-traditional technical services areas such as Web development, marketing, digital initiatives and finance. The employment statuses of the survey respondents were full-time, part-time, permanent or temporary; see Table 3. Ninety-two percent of the survey respondents were permanent, full-time employees.

46

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55 Table 1 Main roles and responsibilities in technical services. Main roles and responsibilities

Total (N = 498)

Library manager of technical services Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services Professional librarian Paraprofessional staff

23 117 124 234

4.6% 23.5% 24.9% 47.0%

Table 2 Technical services functional areas. Functional areas

Library manager of technical services

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services

Professional librarian

Para-professional staff

Total (N = 496)

Collections Acquisitions Cataloging (metadata) management Physical processing Electronic resources management Print serials (check in, binding, etc.) Preservation Administration, management, supervision

6 7 14 9 8 6 3 18

16 50 54 26 45 30 24 55

17 33 85 10 43 10 6 15

17 98 132 48 56 52 15 17

56 188 285 93 152 98 48 105

11.3% 37.9% 57.5% 18.8% 30.6% 19.8% 9.7% 21.2%

4.2. Work time and communication at work For the survey, work time is a time period when librarians and staff are required to work; see Table 4. The average response in Table 4 represents the average of the responses in percentage format. Based on Total (Response average), respondents spent almost 80% of their work time in their own offices or workstations; the rest of their work time was spent almost evenly between elsewhere in technical services and outside technical services. Table 4 showed that technical services managers spent less time in their offices or workstations and more time outside technical services than their non-managerial colleagues in technical services. Survey question 5 asked respondents to estimate the percentage of their work time engaging in different activities in an average month; see Table 5. Communication in technical services can be face-to-face or remote. Based on the Total (Response average), respondents spent about 62% of their work time working alone. Table 5 shows that non-managerial staff spent more time working alone and less time on all types of communication than managers and librarians in technical services. Table 3 Employment status. Employment status

Library manager of technical services (N = 23)

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services (N = 116)

Professional librarian (N = 123)

Para-professional staff (N = 234)

Total (N = 496)

Permanent, full time Permanent, part-time Temporary, full time Temporary, part-time

23 0 0 0

115 1 0 0

109 5 6 3

210 16 5 3

457 22 11 6

92.1% 4.4% 2.2% 1.2%

Table 4 Percentage of work time in different workplaces in an average month (total respondent count = 482). Answer options

Library manager of technical services (response average)

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services (response average)

Professional librarian (response average)

Para-professional staff (response average)

Total (response average)

Your own office/workstation (assigned or shared) Elsewhere in technical services (others' workspaces, meeting rooms, break areas, etc. in your technical services) Outside technical services (others' offices, meeting rooms, break areas, etc. in your library; working at home; attending conferences, etc.)

67.5%

73.1%

79.0%

84.0%

79.4%

11.7%

13.7%

10.1%

10.5%

11.3%

21.9%

14.2%

12.8%

8.1%

11.6%

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

47

Table 5 Percentage of work time in different activities in an average month (total respondent count = 465). Answer options

Library manager of technical services (response average)

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services (response average)

Professional librarian (response average)

Para-professional staff (response average)

Total (response average)

Working alone Unscheduled, face-to-face interaction with others (impromptu conversations, informal meetings, etc.) Scheduled face-to-face interactions with others (scheduled meetings, briefings, trainings, etc.) Remote, real-time communication with others (phone calls, conference calls, video conference, chat room, text message, etc.) Remote, delayed communication with others (email, etc.)

41.8% 12.8%

44.4% 15.9%

52.6% 12.8%

73.7% 9.5%

62.0% 11.3%

21.1%

15.8%

13.4%

7.8%

11.3%

6.2%

5.0%

4.6%

3.2%

4.1%

18.4%

19.5%

17.7%

8.9%

13.8%

Survey question 6 asked respondents to use the drop-down menu (which has four choices — almost every day, often, rare, never) to indicate how often their work interactions were face-to-face and how often their work interactions were non-face-to-face with different groups of people; see Table 6. Table 6 shows that respondents used face-to-face interactions mostly with their co-workers and their immediate supervisors in technical services. Non-face-to-face interactions were used more for people outside technical services. Survey question 7 asked respondents to use the drop-down menu (which has four choices — almost every day, often, rare, never) to indicate how often different interactions took place in different workplaces; see Table 7. Table 7 shows that respondents used their personal offices and workstations mostly for working alone, remote/delayed communication and unscheduled face-to-face interactions. They used “Elsewhere in technical services” mostly for unscheduled or scheduled face-to-face interactions; and used “Outside technical services” mostly for scheduled face-to-face interactions. The survey asked respondents whether the use of social media decreased their need for face-to-face interactions with co-workers; see Table 8. Social media is defined as “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Table 8 shows that, out of the 404 respondents to this question, more than half (65%) responded that the use of social media “definitely not” or “probably not” decreased their need for face-to-face interactions with co-workers. Only about 20% responded that the use of social media “definitely” or “probably” decreased their need for face-to-face interactions with co-workers. 4.3. Office layout For this survey, office layout refers to office design or office plan. The authors asked respondents to provide information on the types of offices or workstations they had at work. The survey listed nine types of offices and workstations that respondents could choose from; see Table 9. The authors were not surprised to find that 95% of technical services managers and 55% of managers of a unit or functional area within technical services had their own enclosed private offices. In contrast, only 33% of non-managerial librarians and 2% of non-managerial staff had their enclosed private offices. No respondents had hot desking — “an office

Table 6 How often is the work communication face-to-face or non-face-to-face with the following people? (total response count = 455). Answer options Face-to-face interactions Your immediate supervisor Co-workers in your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area Other co-workers in your technical services (outside your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area) Other people outside technical services (e.g. faculty, staff, students, and other informational users in or outside your library or universality; vendors, publishers, library associations, etc.) Non-face-to-face interactions Your immediate supervisor Co-workers in your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area Other co-workers in your technical services (outside your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area) Other people outside technical services (e.g. faculty, staff, students, and other informational users in or outside your library or university; vendors, publishers, library associations, etc.)

Almost every day

Often

Rare

Never

230 336 130

50.5% 73.8% 28.6%

147 89 213

32.3% 19.6% 46.8%

77 25 104

16.9% 5.5% 22.9%

1 3 5

0.2% 6.6% 1.1%

69

15.2%

162

35.6%

200

44.0%

22

4.8%

167 170 100

36.7% 37.4% 22.0%

190 138 173

41.8% 30.3% 38.0%

91 135 165

20.0% 29.7% 36.3%

5 5 14

1.1% 1.1% 3.1%

106

23.3%

182

40.0%

19

4.2%

19

4.2%

48

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

Table 7 How often do the following interactions take place in different workplaces? (total response count = 405). Answer options

Never

Your own office/workstation (assigned or shared) Working alone Unscheduled, face-to-face interaction with others (impromptu conversations, informal meetings, etc.) Scheduled face-to-face interactions with others (scheduled meetings, briefings, trainings, etc.) Remote, real-time communication with others (phone calls, conference calls, video conference, chat room, text message, etc.) Remote, delayed communication with others (email, etc.)

Rare

Often

Almost everyday

2 0.5% 12 3.0% 21 5.2% 370 91.4% 1 0.2% 47 11.6% 157 38.8% 187 46.2% 44 10.9% 213 52.6% 127 31.3% 20 5.0% 45 11.1% 174 43.0% 119 29.4% 66 16.3% 4

1.0%

30

7.4%

88 21.7% 282 69.6%

Elsewhere in technical services (others' workspaces, meeting rooms, break areas, etc. in your technical services) Working alone 130 32.1% 176 43.5% 70 17.3% Unscheduled, face-to-face interaction with others (impromptu conversations, informal meetings, etc.) 7 1.7% 96 23.7% 193 47.7% Scheduled face-to-face interactions with others (scheduled meetings, briefings, trainings, etc.) 10 2.5% 154 38.0% 220 54.3% Remote, real-time communication with others (phone calls, conference calls, video conference, chat 132 32.6% 216 53.3% 47 11.6% room, text message, etc.) Remote, delayed communication with others (email, etc.) 185 45.7% 135 33.3% 51 12.6% Outside technical services (others' offices, meeting rooms, break areas, etc. in your library; working at home; attending conferences, etc.) Working alone 106 26.2% 201 49.6% 85 Unscheduled, face-to-face interaction with others (impromptu conversations, informal meetings, etc.) 31 76.5% 209 51.6% 126 Scheduled face-to-face interactions with others (scheduled meetings, briefings, trainings, etc.) 24 5.9% 188 46.4% 169 Remote, real-time communication with others (phone calls, conference calls, video conference, 125 30.9% 218 53.8% 52 chat room, text message, etc.) Remote, delayed communication with others (email, etc.) 143 35.3% 156 38.5% 54

29 7.2% 95 23.5% 20 5.0% 9 2.2% 32

7.9%

21.0% 31.1% 41.7% 12.8%

12 27 23 9

3.0% 6.7% 5.7% 2.2%

13.3%

51 12.6%

organization system which involves multiple workers using a single physical workstation or surface during different time periods” (Hot desking, 2013). The authors asked a follow-up question to find out whether respondents thought that their office layout met their needs at work in different activities, interactions and communication; see Table 10. The majority of the respondents to this question felt that their office layout definitely or probably met their needs for remote, delayed communication (94%), working alone (73%), unscheduled face-to-face interactions (73%), working with co-workers in immediate teams/working groups/units/functional areas (73%), working with immediate supervisors (65%), working with other co-workers in technical services (60%), remote real-time communication (55%), scheduled face-to-face interactions (50%) and working with people outside technical services (45%). Another follow-up question asked respondents what type of offices or workstations they preferred to have. The question asked respondents to pick the one that would meet most of their work needs regardless of what type of offices or workstations they had in their current work environment; see Table 11. Sixty-six percent of the 402 respondents to this question picked enclosed private offices as their preferred type. In contrast, only 13% preferred to have partitioned workstations with high cubicle panels over 5 ft tall on all open sides, 5% preferred to have partitioned workstations with low cubicle panels lower than 5 ft on all open sides, 5% preferred to have partitioned workstations with high cubicle panels over 5 ft on some open sides and low cubicle panels lower than 5 ft on other open sides, 3% preferred to have partitioned workstations with high cubicle panels over 5 ft on only some open sides and no cubicle panels on the rest of the open sides, 3% preferred to have partitioned workstations with low cubicle panels lower than 5 ft on only some open sides and no cubicle panels on the rest of the open sides, and 5% preferred to have workstations without cubicle panels. 4.4. Office comfort The survey asked respondents about their satisfaction level towards the various elements in their physical office environment; see Appendix B in Supplementary data. According to the percentages listed under “not satisfied at all,” the top ten elements that respondents were least satisfied with are: personal control at workstations (49%), acoustic privacy/conversational privacy (43%), Table 8 Has the use of social media decreased your need to have face-to-face interactions with co-workers? Has the use of social media decreased your need to have face-to-face interactions with co-workers?

Library manager of technical services N = 21

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services N = 99

Professional librarian N = 98

Para-professional staff N = 186

Total (N = 404)

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe Probably not Definitely not I don't know

0 2 1 6 12 0

8 9 10 23 47 2

6 12 16 21 41 2

22 29 14 50 64 7

36 52 41 100 164 11

8.9% 12.9% 10.1% 24.8% 40.6% 2.7%

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

49

Table 9 Office/workstation types. Answer options

Library manager of technical services N = 21

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services N = 99

Professional librarian N = 98

Para-professional staff N = 186

Total N = 404

My own enclosed private office A private enclosed office shared with other co-worker or co-workers An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high cubicle panels over 5′ on all open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with low cubicle panels lower than 5′ on all open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high cubicle panels over 5′ on some open sides and low cubicle panels lower than 5′ on other open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high cubicle panels over 5′ on only some open sides and the rest of the open sides are without cubicle panels) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with low cubicle panels lower than 5′ on only some open sides and the rest of the open sides are without cubicle panels) An open plan office (a workstation without partitions (without cubicle panels)) Hot desking

20 0

95.3% 0.0%

54 2

54.5% 2.0%

32 3

32.7% 3.1%

4 10

2.2% 5.4%

110 15

27.2% 3.7%

1

4.8%

12

12.1%

22

22.4$

41

22.0%

76

18.8%

0

0.0%

9

0.9%

6

6.1%

30

16.1%

45

11.1%

0

0.0%

4

4.0%

11

11.2%

19

10.2%

34

8.4%

0

0.0%

6

6.1%

7

7.1%

23

12.4%

36

8.9%

0

0.0%

6

6.1%

8

8.2%

36

19.4%

50

12.4%

0

0.0%

6

6.1%

9

9.2%

23

12.4%

38

9.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

noise control (29%), natural lighting (27%), window view (26%), visual privacy (25%), ability to choose office/workstation to do work (23%), room temperature (20%), ventilation (19%) and interior decoration (18%). As to the satisfaction level towards the overall comfort of their physical office environment, out of the 390 respondents to this question, 10% were very satisfied, 32% were satisfied, 33% were somewhat satisfied, 19% were somewhat unsatisfied and 7% were very unsatisfied. See Table 12. It is noticeable that, out of the twenty managers of technical services who responded to this question, all of them checked “very satisfied” or “satisfied.” Table 10 Does the layout of your office/workstation in technical services meet the needs for the following? Answer options

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably no

Definitely no

Total

Working alone (focus work)

47.9% (193) 44.1% (175) 32.5% (130) 37.7% (151)

25.3% (102) 28.5% (113) 17.5% (70) 17.0% (68)

7.4% (30) 12.3% (49) 14.3% (57) 16.0% (64)

9.4% (38) 10.8% (43) 19.8% (79) 16.2% (65)

9.9% (40) 4.3% (17) 16.0% (64) 13.2% (53)

403

70.4% (283) 39.3%(158)

23.1% (93) 25.6% (103) 32.4% (130) 28.7% (115) 21.6% (86)

4.0% (16) 15.2% (61) 15.5% (62) 18.7% (75) 19.8% (79)

1.7% (7) 10.4% (42) 8.2% (33) 13.5% (54) 19.8% (79)

0.7% (3) 9.5% (38) 3.7% (15) 7.7% (31) 15.0% (60)

Unscheduled, face-to-face interaction with others (impromptu conversations, informal meetings, etc.) Scheduled face-to-face interactions with others (scheduled meetings, briefings, trainings, etc.) Remote, real-time communication with others (phone calls, conference calls, video conference, chat room, text message, etc.) Remote, delayed communication with others (email, etc.) Working with your immediate supervisor Working with co-workers in your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area Working with other co-workers in your technical services (outside your immediate team/working group/unit/functional area) Working with other people outside technical services (e.g. faculty, staff, students, and other information users in or outside your library or university; vendors, publishers, library associations, etc.)

40.1% (161) 31.4% (126) 23.8% (95)

397 400 401

402 402 401 401 399

50

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

Table 11 Preferred types of offices/workstations. Answer options

Library manager Library manager of a Professional Para-professional Total of technical unit or functional area librarian staff (N = 402) services in technical services

My own enclosed private office 20 A private enclosed office shared with other co-worker 1 or co-workers An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high 0 cubicle panels over 5 ft on all open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with low cubicle 0 panels lower than 5 ft on all open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high 0 cubicle panels over 5 ft on some open sides and low cubicle panels lower than 5 ft on other open sides) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with high 0 cubicle panels over 5 ft on only some open sides and the rest of the open sides are without cubicle panels) An open plan office (a partitioned workstation with low cubicle 0 panels lower than 5 ft on only some open sides and the rest of the open sides are without cubicle panels) An open plan office (a workstation without partitions 0 (without cubicle panels)) Hot desking 0

83 3

66 3

71 18

240 59.7% 25 6.2%

4

15

35

54 13.4%

2

4

14

20

5.0%

1

4

13

18

4.5%

1

2

10

13

3.2%

1

0

11

12

3.0%

4

3

11

18

4.5%

0

1

1

2

0.5%

Survey question 13 asked respondents to rate how important different elements in physical office environment are to them; see Appendix C in Supplementary data. According to the percentages listed under “Very important,” the top ten elements that are very important to the respondents are: availability of technology to support individual work (72%), seating comfort and adjustability (60%), physical security (59%), emergency detection (58%), acoustic privacy/conversational privacy (56%), indoor air quality (54%), hazard-free environment (54%), ventilation (53%), noise control (51%) and room temperature control (49%). The survey asked respondents to indicate how their current physical office environment could be improved; see Appendix D in Supplementary data. The top ten suggestions chosen by respondents are: improving acoustic privacy (62%), improving workspace noise control (54%), improving ventilation (53%), improving indoor air quality (50%), individualizing heating and cooling controls at workstations (50%), having access to fresh air (48%), improving visual privacy (40%), having access to natural lighting (40%), increasing personal control at workstations (39%) and having less distraction at work (38%). 4.5. Current issues Based on the literature review, the authors compiled a list of current issues related to physical office environment in technical services. The survey asked respondents for their opinions on those current issues; see Appendix E in Supplementary data. In a separate question, the survey asked respondents how important it was to them for the physical office environment to be green (e.g., to be designed with sustainability and the environment in mind); see Table 13. Out of the 358 respondents, 64% considered it “very important” or “important” for the physical office environment to be green. The survey asked respondents whether their libraries should encourage them to participate in the planning and designing of the physical office environment; see Table 14. Out of the 358 respondents, 82% thought that their libraries should “definitely” or “probably” encourage them to participate in the planning and designing of their physical office environment. The survey also asked respondents whether the improvement of the physical office environment in technical services should be an issue for their library administration to consider over the next five years; see Table 15. Out of the 358 respondents, 38% thought that the improvement of physical office environment in technical services should definitely be an issue for their library Table 12 Satisfaction level with the overall comfort of the physical office environment. Answer options

Library manager of technical services N = 20

Library managerof a unit or functional area in technical services N = 93

Professional librarian N = 96

Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat unsatisfied Not satisfied at all N/A

1 10 9 0 0 0

13 32 28 14 6 0

8 32 27 23 6 0

5.0% 50.0% 45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

14.0% 34.4% 30.1% 15.1% 6.5% 0.0%

8.3% 33.3% 28.1% 24.0% 6.3% 0.0%

Para-professional staff N = 181

Total N = 390

15 50 63 36 14 3

37 124 127 73 26 3

8.3% 27.6% 34.8% 19.9% 7.7% 1.7%

9.5% 31.8% 32.6% 18.7% 6.7% 0.8%

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

51

Table 13 How important is it to you for the physical office environment to be green or be designed with sustainability and the environment in mind? Answer options

Library manager of technical services

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services

Professional librarian

Paraprofessional staff

Total N = 358

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important at all I don't know

6 7 6 0 0

31 23 27 7 0

21 39 21 6 2

52 59 40 11 0

110 128 94 24 2

30.7% 35.8% 26.3% 6.7% 0.6%

Table 14 Do you think your library should encourage you to participate in the design or renovation of its physical office environment? Answer options

Library manager of technical services

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services

Professional librarian

Para-professional staff

Total N = 358

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe Probably not Definitely not I don't know

16 3 0 0 0 0

52 26 7 2 0 1

44 30 14 1 0 0

74 50 30 5 1 2

186 109 51 8 1 3

52.0% 30.4% 14.2% 2.2% 0.3% 0.8%

administration to consider over the next five years. Only 3% thought that it definitely should not be an issue for library administration to consider over the next five years since library administration needed to focus on other more pressing issues. 4.6. Impact of physical office environment At the end of the survey, the authors asked respondents whether the physical office environment had an impact on their job satisfaction, privacy, communication, and collaboration in technical services; see Table 16. The majority of the respondents thought that the physical office environment had a significant impact on job satisfaction (73%), privacy (72%), productivity (74%), communication (62%) and collaboration (56%). 5. Discussion 5.1. Key survey findings More than half of the survey respondents considered the physical office environment to have a significant impact on job satisfaction, privacy, productivity, communication and collaboration. More than half of the respondents selected “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with these statements: (1) “Physical office environment should be designed to support efficient workflows in technical services”; (2) “Most of the work in technical services is focus work which requires very high level of concentration”; (3) “Physical office environment should be designed to accommodate change; it needs to be dynamic, flexible, and adaptable to future needs in technical services”; (4) “Physical office environment is an effective tool to support the library's missions; thus it is not an overhead cost, but part of the library's strategic planning”; (5) “Physical office environment should be designed to support both individual activities and collaboration among people or groups in technical services”; (6) “Employees in technical services should be provided with more control over their physical office environment”; (7) “If the physical office environment design makes it easy for employees in technical services to access each other, it will improve productivity, communication and collaboration in technical services”; (8) “If the physical office environment design allows employees in technical services to make a smooth transition between solo and group work within their own workspace, it will improve productivity, communication and Table 15 Do you think the improvement of physical office environment in technical services should be an issue for your library administration to work on in the next 5 years? Answer options

Library manager of technical services

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services

Professional librarian

Para-professional staff

Total N = 358

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe Probably not Definitely not I don't know

9 3 1 6 0 0

31 29 13 11 4 0

37 18 16 15 3 0

58 48 32 16 5 3

135 98 62 48 12 3

37.7% 27.4% 17.3% 13.4% 3.4% 0.8%

52

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

Table 16 In your opinion, does physical office environment have an impact on the following? Answer options (Physical office environment has…)

Library manager of a unit or functional area in technical services

Professional librarian

13 6 0

66 21 1

68 21 0

11 8 0

64 23 1

Productivity in technical services Significant impact on Some impact on No impact at all on Total

17 2 0

Communication in technical services Significant impact on Some impact on No impact at all on Total Collaboration in technical services Significant impact on Some impact on No impact at all Total

Job satisfaction in technical services Significant impact on Some impact on No impact at all on Total Privacy in technical services Significant impact on Some impact on No impact at all on

Library manager of technical services

Para-professional staff

Total N

%

113 48 1

260 96 2 358

72.6% 26.8% 0.6%

70 19 0

111 48 3

256 98 4 358

71.5% 27.4% 1.1%

60 27 1

67 21 1

119 41 2

263 91 4 358

73.5% 25.4% 1.1%

13 5 1

57 30 1

58 30 1

95 63 4

223 128 7 358

62.3% 35.8% 2.0%

13 5 1

49 36 1

53 33 2

85 73 4

200 147 8 355

56.3% 41.4% 2.3%

collaboration in technical services”; (9) “Collaboration and communication will be enhanced in technical services if there are a variety of physical spaces that enable spontaneous interactions.” More than half of the respondents selected “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” with the statement “Physical office environment is purely an overhead cost; thus the library needs to reduce this overhead cost through space efficiency and reduction efforts in technical services.” Respondents spent most of their work time in their own offices or workstations. They used both face-to-face communication (scheduled or unscheduled) and remote communication (real-time or delayed) on a daily basis. They spent most of their work time on focus work. In addition to focus work, they devoted a significant amount of time to communication and collaboration. The use of social media did not necessarily decrease their needs for face-to-face interactions. Most of the respondents with management duties had their own enclosed private offices and it was very rare for non-managerial staff to have their enclosed private offices. More than half of the respondents thought that their office layout met their various work needs for focus work, communication and collaboration. More than half of the respondents chose enclosed private offices as their preferred office type. As to the satisfaction level of respondents towards the overall comfort of their physical office environment, 10% were very satisfied, 32% were satisfied, 33% were somewhat satisfied, 19% were somewhat unsatisfied and 7% were very unsatisfied. The most-often-mentioned areas that needed improvement in technical services physical office environment are: acoustic privacy, noise control, ventilation, personal control of workstation, access to fresh air, visual privacy, access to natural lighting and indoor air quality. More than half of the respondents considered these areas to be very important in a good technical services physical office environment: availability of technology to support individual work, seating comfort and adjustability, physical security, emergency detection, acoustic privacy/conversational privacy, indoor air quality, hazard-free environment, ventilation, noise control and room temperature control. More than half of the respondents considered it important for the physical office environment to be green (to be designed with sustainability and the environment in mind). Most of the respondents considered it critical for library administration to encourage technical services employees to participate in the planning and designing of technical services. Close to 40% of respondents thought that the improvement of physical office environment in technical services should definitely be an issue for their library administration to consider over the next five years. 5.2. Impact of survey findings on the design of the physical office environment in technical services 5.2.1. Office layout The main purpose of the physical office environment in technical services is to support technical services employees to perform their jobs to maximum productivity and efficiency, with maximum satisfaction, and at the minimum cost. The survey showed that respondents spent most of their work time working alone in their own offices and workstations. Since focus work is the main work activity and the one that occupies the largest portion of the workday, it is critical to support focus work in the office layout in technical services. In addition to focus work, respondents also devoted a significant amount of time to face-to-face and remote communication;

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

53

thus the office layout should also support various types of interactions, communication and collaboration. According to Gensler's study, “work modes are highly interconnected, with focus as the primary component and the key predictor of all other work modes effectiveness. So a workplace that scores well for effective focus scores well for collaboration, learning and socializing. The inverse is true as well: miss the mark on individual focus work, and all other work modes suffer. The relationship with collaboration is especially pronounced. When focus effectiveness decreases, collaboration effectiveness decreases” (Gensler, 2012). All respondents' libraries housed their technical services in an open plan office environment where many employees occupied a single room, often separated by cubicles, with only a few employees working in enclosed private offices. As shown in the survey, most of the enclosed private offices in technical services were devoted to managers; it was very rare for a non-managerial staff to have an enclosed private office. In contrast to reality, it was the wish of most respondents to have enclosed private offices. The arguments for enclosed private offices by respondents revolved mostly around the necessity for privacy (due to private evaluation of staff and private communication with supervisors, staff and vendors) and the necessity for noise control and distraction control (due to focus work). However, due to the high costs of enclosed private offices and the lack of space to build them, it is unrealistic to expect libraries to provide private enclosed offices for every employee in technical services. It is likely that most libraries considering private enclosed offices have to do a cost–benefit analysis to justify the extra costs. The assumption that enclosed private offices provide more privacy and noise control than cubicles is not always true. “Within an open plan environment, the types of workspace partitions used may have an effect on communication and privacy. Dry wall offices, even with the door closed, only achieve 75% acoustical privacy compared to 8 ft x 8 ft open plan offices (with 60-inch high acoustical panels, acoustical ceiling tiles and sound masking) which achieve 93% acoustical privacy” (Knoll, 2008). Further studies are needed for these questions: Are private enclosed offices for non-managerial staff in technical services worth the substantial extra costs? How to best support focus work, communication, collaboration and productivity in an open office environment in technical services? An open plan office environment has both positive effects (increased employee communication and interaction, flexibility of redesign, ability to house more employees, reduced set-up and renovation times and costs (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002)) and negative effects (perceived crowding, less privacy and security, higher noise levels, more distractions, lack of personal control over lighting, heating and air conditioning, and being more prone to disease spreading (Smith, 2007)). The assumption that an open plan office environment improves communication and collaboration is not always true. “Oftentimes, the desire for higher levels of communication translates into environments that are more open, with lower panel partitions. However, it has been demonstrated, that this assumption does not always lead to a more productive work environment” (Knoll, 2007). The kinds of tasks being performed require careful consideration when making decisions about office layout. Since different technical services librarians and staff have different job responsibilities and technical services in different libraries have different organizational structures and workflows, it is almost impossible to say which office layout design is the best for all technical services. In order to design a satisfying office layout, we need to understand workflows, organizational charts, projection of number of employees in the future, communication network, departmental organization, ratio of private to general offices, space requirements, specialized areas, safety considerations, barrier-free construction, expansion, and equipment and furniture needs (Office Layout, 2001). A user survey is one of the ways to gather the needs and preferences of individual employees in technical services. It is critical for the library administration to involve technical services employees in the planning and designing of technical services physical office environment at every stage of the process. “To aid decision-making in workplace and office design, one can distinguish three different types of office spaces: work spaces, meeting spaces and support spaces” (Office, 2013). There are nine generic types of work space, each supporting different activities — open office, team space, cubicle, private office, shared office, team room, study booth, work lounge and touch down. There are six generic types of meeting space, each supporting different activities — small meeting room, large meeting room, small meeting space, large meeting space, brainstorming room and meeting point. There are twelve generic types of support space, each supporting different activities — filing space, storage space, print and copy area, mail area, pantry area, break area, locker area, smoking room, library, games room, waiting room and circulation space (Office, 2013). Every office layout has its own pros and cons. The key to a successful design of office layout is to meet both the needs of technical services as a unit and the needs of technical services librarians and staff as individuals. “It is clear that when occupants experience their needs as fulfilled, their environmental satisfaction is improved. Meeting individual needs – which vary by job type, individual characteristics, and from one task to another – leads to improved satisfaction, but there is no universal way of doing this” (Marquardt, Veitch, & Charles, 2002, p. 2). Any office layout design is likely to involve trade-offs for employees, with some positives and negatives (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007, pp. 181–124). A good office layout should provide systematic and scientific arrangement of available spaces, fix up the right amount of space for each employees, machine and equipment, and provide the best possible office environment (What Are the Factors Taken into Account While Laying Out an Office?, 2012). It should make the fullest utilization of space and each employee should have enough work space for efficiency. It should support the smooth and unhindered flow of work (both focus work and team work), inter-relation of departments, and communication (both face-to-face and remote). It should increase the level of office comfort as much as possible and provide a hazard-free work environment. Open plan offices and enclosed private offices have their own pros and cons; and they both serve useful purposes. The question is how to achieve the right balance between open plan offices and enclosed private offices so that libraries can, on the one hand, create a workplace that helps attract and retain high-quality staff and enables them to work to their fullest potential, and on the other hand, balance the competing goals of capital and operating costs. How to address the spectrum of various requirements for focus work, collaborative work, different workflows and different types of communication in technical services with scalable and efficient solutions that libraries can manage from a cost and operational standpoints will require further studies. Gensler offered some general directions on this issue: “To enhance both collaboration and concentration, we are seeking to invent a workplace that provides a spectrum of

54

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

individual choices of primary workplaces, supported by places to collaborate, socialize and learn. This new hybrid could unlock untapped value through a more equitable balance of concentration and collaboration in the workplace: a new approach that could create a fresh level of success for organizations” (Gensler, 2012). Knoll (2007) also pointed out the key issues that should be addressed in the physical office environment design: “(1) flexibility that supports and enhances organizational change; (2) creating work environments that enhance employee satisfaction for attract and retain purposes. “Open plan” does not automatically translate into low panel partitions that do not provide adequate worker privacy; (3) ability to innovate while maintaining installed base; (4) technology accommodation and integration; (5) ergonomic adjustability and adaptability to unique worker requirements” (Knoll, 2007). Based on literature review and personal experiences in both architecture and technical services, the authors had some recommendations for architects and library administrators on planning an office layout that will be more likely to meet various needs in technical services: (a) For preliminary planning, conduct an in-house research or hire a consultant to study the existing office layout; find out how the office space is used and whether it has been used efficiently; find out whether the existing office layout meets the needs of technical services as a unit, the needs of different workflows and types of communication, and the needs of employees as individuals; shadow workflows to see whether the existing office layout supports or hinders the smooth flow of work; shadow communication processes to see whether existing office layout supports or hinders effective communication in all formats. (b) Meet business challenges by conducting cost and benefits analysis. (c) Consider different options, such as minimal renovation targeted spending, open plan design, diversification in workplace design. (d) Establish goals for the design or renovation, and set up priorities. e) Plan for the present and leave room for future growth. (f) Implement modern office technology whenever possible within budget limits. (g) Offer freedom as much as possible for employees to modify their work spaces according to their needs. (h) After the plan is drafted, keep asking for feedback and make changes whenever possible. (i) Involve employees in the process from beginning to the end so that necessary changes can be made timely. 5.2.2. Office comfort Office comfort includes all the elements listed in Appendix B in Supplementary data. For a comfortable office environment, the dry bulb temperature (“the temperature of air measured by a thermometer freely exposed to the air but shielded from radiation and moisture” (Dry-Bulb Temperature, 2013)) is generally 18 °C to 20 °C in winter and 24 °C to 28 °C in summer; the relative humidity is 40% to 60% in winter and 40% to 65% in summer; the ventilation number is 1 to 5 times/h; the artificial illumination standards for general business office is 75–150 lx; the office building indoor natural light illumination is 100 lx; the minimum value of daylight factor is (Cmin) 2% (Design of Library Buildings, 2012); the allowed noise level for an ordinary office is ≤45 dB (A) and for a conference room is ≤40 dB (A) (Code for Design of Civil Buildings, 2012). The survey showed that uncomfortable office environment (e.g. adverse thermal comfort, air quality issues, poor lighting, lack of noise control, lack of furniture comfort and adjustability, lack of acoustic and visual privacy, lack of adequate technology support, lack of personal control, filthiness, inadequate workspace, lack of ergonomics, and lack of security) had a negative impact on the satisfaction level of respondents towards their physical office environment; as a result, they also had a negative impact on their productivity, job satisfaction, privacy, communication and collaboration. Libraries might be able to solve some of these issues without waiting for major redesigns or renovations of technical services. Once the risk factors relating to these conditions are understood, solutions to the issues often become apparent. While some solutions might take major financial decisions, some solutions might not cost that much at all. 6. Conclusion Traditional technical services, typically characterized by organizational silos and strict hierarchy and linear workflows in each silo, will not meet the new challenges in the twenty-first century. Technical services have been exploring more innovative ways to do the work by breaking down the organizational silos, streamlining workflows, promoting collaboration within technical services and with people outside technical services, improving communication, supporting team environment, improving employee morale, implementing new technology and increasing productivity. It is critical to have an efficient physical office environment in technical services to support all those changes. Since technical services librarians and staff spend most of their work time in technical services, it is critical to have a satisfying physical office environment so that they can achieve high levels of productivity, efficiency, privacy and job satisfaction. This survey did some ground work in understanding the physical office environment in technical services and the survey results will be useful for both library administrators and architects when planning and designing physical office environment for technical services in libraries. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2013.09.001. References Arieff, A. (2012). Collaborative workspaces: Not all they're cracked up to be. The Atlantic, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/01/collaborativeworkspaces-not-all-theyre-cracked-be/946/, (viewed March 13, 2013). Bodin, L., Rönn, M., & Danielsson, C. B. (2008, June). Office environment affects health, wellbeing and work. Sustainability: Journal From the Swedish Research Council Formas, 2, http://sustainability.formas.se/en/Issues/Issue-2-June-2008/Content/Across-disciplinary-boundaries/Office-environment-affects-healthwellbeing-and-work/, (viewed March 13, 2013). Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002, May). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 34 (3), 279–299.

L. Zhu / Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 37 (2013) 42–55

55

Cain, S. (2012, Jan. 13). The rise of the new groupthink. The New York Times Jan. 13, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-thenew-groupthink.html?pagewanted = all&_r = 1&, (viewed March 13, 2013). Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.). (2006). Creating the Productive Workplace London: Taylor & Francis. Code for Design of Civil Buildings (2012). GB 50352-2005. http://www.jianshe99.com/new/201206/xu2012061214334730849820.shtml (viewed March 14, 2013). Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26. (pp. 193–235) Chichester, UK: Wiley, http://www.academia.edu/434685/The_Physical_ Environment_of_the_Office_Contemporary_and_Emerging_Issues, (viewed March 13, 2013). Design of Library Buildings (2012). GBJ 38-99. http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/download/explain.php?fileid=8322978 (viewed March 14, 2013). Dry-Bulb Temperature (2013, Feb. 28). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry-bulb_temperature (viewed March 14, 2013). Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Chapter 4: The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1 (1). Face to Face Communication (2010). http://www.people-communicating.com/face-to-face-communication.html (viewed March 13, 2013). Gensler (2006). The Gensler Design + Performance Index: The U.S. Workplace Survey. http://www.team-mates.com/storage/knowledge-center-documents/ Gensler%20U.S.%20Workplace%20Survey%20-%20DesignPerformanceIndex.pdf (viewed March 13, 2013). Gensler (2008). 2008 Workplace Survey: United States. http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/2008_Gensler_Workplace_Survey_US_09_30_2009.pdf (viewed March 13, 2013). Gensler (2008). These Four Walls: The Real British Office. http://www.makespacework.com/Resources-pdf/Business/These%20four%20walls%20the%20real%20 British%20Office.pdf (viewed March 13, 2013). Gensler (2012). What We Have Learned about Focus in the Workplace. http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Focus_in_the_Workplace_10_01_2012.pdf (viewed March 13, 2013). Haynes, B. P. (2008). An evaluation of the impact of the office environment on Productivity. Facilities, 26 (5), 178–195. Hoare, R. (2012, Oct. 4). Do Open Plan Offices Lead to Better Work or Closed Minds? http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/business/global-office-open-plan/index. html (viewed March 13, 2013). Hot Desking (2013, June 24). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_desking (viewed Aug. 23, 2013). Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53 (1). Knoll (2007). Open Plan Versus Enclosed Private Offices: A Review of the Research. http://www.thespaceplace.net/articles/knoll200703.php (viewed Aug. 30, 2013). Knoll (2008). Open Plan and Enclosed Private Offices: Research Review and Recommendations. http://www.knoll.com/media/878/738/OpenClosed_Offices_wp.pdf (viewed Aug. 25, 2013). Knoll (2013). Workplace Research. http://www.knoll.com/research/index.jsp (viewed March 13, 2013). Lechner, A. (2012, Aug. 18). Better Teamwork Through Better Workplace Design. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04/better_teamwork_through_office.html (viewed March 13, 2013). Lee, Y. S. (2010). Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Building and Environment, 45. Mak, C. M., & Lui, Y. P. (2012). The effect of sound on office productivity. Journal: Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 33 (3). Marquardt, C. J. G., Veitch, J. A., & Charles, K. E. (2002). Environmental satisfaction with open-plan office furniture design and layout. IRC-RR-106 (September 2002). Office (2013, Aug. 30). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office (viewed Aug. 30, 2013). Office Layout (2001). http://www.enotes.com/office-layout-reference/office-layout (viewed March 13, 2013). O'Neill, M. J. (2007). Measuring Workplace Performance. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC/Taylor & Francis. Open Plan (2013, Feb. 22). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_plan (viewed March 13, 2013). Oseland, N., Marmot, A., Swaffer, F., & Ceneda, S. (2011). Environments for successful interaction. Facilities, 29 (1). Parkin, J. K., Austin, S. A., Pinder, J. A., Baguley, T. S., & Allenby, N. (2011). Balancing collaboration and privacy in academic workspaces. Facilities, 29 (1). Paul, A. M. (2012, Aug. 15). Workplace Woes: the ‘Open’ Office Is a Hotbed of Stress. http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/15/why-the-open-office-is-a-hotbed-ofstress/ (viewed March 13, 2013). Saji, M., Kato, K., Matsumoto, Y., Naka, R., & Yamaguchi, S. (2006). A Study of Relations Between Office Layout and Communications. http://repository.lib.kit.ac.jp/ dspace/bitstream/10212/595/1/ITA2006_2_%E6%8A%95%E7%A8%BF%E5%8E%9F%E7%A8%BF.pdf (viewed March 13, 2013). Sample Size (2002, Sept. 4). How many completed surveys do I need? http://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-software-support/tutorials/sample-size/ (viewed March 14, 2013). Smith, Paul (2007). Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Plan Offices. http://www.businesstoolchest.com/articles/data/20070926094800.shtml (viewed March 14, 2013). What Are the Factors Taken into Account While Laying Out an Office? http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/articles/what-is-office-layout-whatare-the-factors-taken-into-account-while-paying-out-an-office.html. (2012). (viewed March 14, 2013). Wolfeld, L. R. (2010). Effects of office layout on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment as transmitted through face-to-face interactions. Colonial Academic Alliance Undergraduate Research Journal, 1 (1) http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/caaurj/vol1/iss1/8/, (viewed March 13, 2013). Zhu, L. (2011). Use of teams in technical services in academic libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 35 (2/3).