User needs programme for a research facility

U s e r needs programme for a research facility* The results of this study of user needs were intended to provide the initial information for a more complete programme for a new engineering research building. The 44,000 ft 2 facility, to be located on the campus of a multidiscipline research complex, was to house a variety of research operations which relied heavily on computer applications. The objectives of the programming were to identify activities and activity relationships and user perceptions of and preferences for office settings. A variety of data collection and analysis techniques were employed by the programming team including standardized programming sheets, relationship matrices, correlation diagrams, and questionnaires containing semantic differential tests and open ended questions. The programme represented the user-related space requirements for the building and was intended as a guide for the designer and a model for the client in continuing development of programme information and dialogue with the designer.

PROJECT The objective of the project was to develop an initial programme of space requirements for a specialized facility based on individual and group functions, activities and user preferences. The project involved three elements which were related to physical space needs: activity analysis, functional and organizational relationship analysis, and evaluation of the perceived adequacy of office environments. This user-needs study was intended to provide the design architect with behaviourrelated information with which to create a facility that would respond directly to the client needs.

*This paper is based on work published in 'The architects guide to facility programming' (ed. M. Palmer, published, The American Institute of Architects, Washington DC, 1981) by Sanoff, H, Adams, G and Smith A

Vol 6 No 4 October 1 9 8 5

The programmer approached the project with two other objectives: to sensitize prospective facility users to their working environments and to provide the client with a programming model with which to continue the userneeds dialogue with the designer. The facility was to be a new building of approximately 44,000 ft 2 which would become a part of the existing research institute campus. The building had been selected by the US Department of Energy as a solar demonstration project.

CLIENT The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) is a private organization engaged in research and development in four main areas: social sciences; statistical sciences; chemistry and life sciences; and energy, engineering and environmental sciences. The primary purpose of the organization is to organize research teams to conduct contract research which is generally heavily reliant on computer applications. Research engineers and project coordinators are the main users of this particular facility. The client was actively involved in the programming; first to provide data and second, to gain a better understanding of user-environment relationships and user perception of needs. A facility study committee was established by the Institute to project space needs, and the programmer involved the client, both management and research staff, through individual interviews, group workshops and questionnaires. Forty-one members of the engineering research staff, representing three levels of organizational position, participated in the office setting evaluation.

PROCESS Programming is a process of problem identification, information collection and information organization re-

0142-694X/85/04187-09 $03.00 © 1985 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) 1,td

187

suiting in 'a communicable statement of intent' according to the programme author. 1 The programme report explains that programming 'is an operating procedure for systematizing the design process' and the programme 'provides an organizational structure for the design team and a clear communicable set of conditions for review by those affected by its implementation'. In this case, development of the programme involved three principal tasks: identification of user activities and activity relationships, identification of functional and organizational relationships, and evaluation of user perceptions of office environments.Techniques employed included standardized programming sheets, interviews, relationship matrices, correlation diagrams and questionnaires that included semantic differential scales and open-ended questions. An outline of the programming procedures is presented in Figure 1. The forms, data collected and findings developed in programming were intended to be used by the client in adding and refining information throughout the programming/design process. Many operations are involved in the performance of research and there are numerous variations in operations among the various functions, divisions and departments of the engineering research programme. An activity analysis was performed to enable the programmer, and ultimately the client and designer, to understand the exact nature of the research functions and their relationship. The initial step was the preparation of a programming sheet which could be used by all depart-

ments to collect standardized information on their activities and needs (See Figure 2). In interviews with department managers, the programming sheets were filled out, identifying organizational elements (division/department), primary activities, participants (personnel), space requirements for those activities (size, support requirements, level of privacy needed), the secondary activities necessary to accomplish the primary activities, and the equipment/storage needs. Since the last four categories of data (numbers 3 - 6 of the programming sheet) were related, each item was keyed by corresponding numerals among these categories. For example, two senior professionals and two professionals required 144 ft 2 of space to perform computer searches for which a computer terminal was needed. All of these are keyed with the number "1". When all the programming sheets were completed the secondary activities of each division or department were listed in a relationship (or affinity) matrix. This was used to identify the proximity relationships of the activities performed by comparing each activity to each other one. Three criteria were considered in completing the matrix: did the activity occur in the same space as another activity, in close proximity to it, or independent of the other activity? The proximity relationships of activities of the Process Engineering Department are shown in Figure 3. From the matrix it was possible for the programmer to identify groups of activities that occurred within the same space and the activity groupings that related to each

OUTLINE OF PROGRAMMING PROCEDURES

(primary activity ~ Co~ut~r

1[

~

( department ~ ~ , ~ , ~

~

1) Programmer devised standardized programming sheet 2) Department managers, during interviews, filled in programming sheet, cataloguing activities, personnel, space needs and equipment/storage needs. 3) Programmer compared secondary activities (necessary to accomplish primary activities) with each other in relationship matrix for each division or department. 4) Activities were grouped from matrix into correlation diagrams of principal functions within each division or department. 5) Programmer prepared department/division/function interaction matrix for use in interviews with department managers. 6) Department managers identified relationships by matrix among functions/divisions/departments. 7) Programmer mapped relationship patterns from matrix in an interaction net. 8) Programmer administered 'perception survey' to obtain user evaluations of office environments. 9) Programmer analysed results of survey. 10) Programmer documented findings and presented programme to designer and client. Figure 1.

188

~'~i~

~I¢~X~ ~:~ ~ -i~!'i:~ ! ~......... i. 2. Preparation of code and documentation (flow charts, cards, written descriptions) in support of contract or program development activities

3. 4. 5. !6. !,

I. i. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Senior Professionals Professionals Senior Professionals Professionals g ~ i o r Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals

3

~ ' ~

4

5

P r o h l ~ definition Data preparation Program flow charting P r o h l ~ coding De-hugging Computer interaction

e q u i p m e n t - s t o r a g e needs I. Desk/chair/layout space 2. Key punch 3. 4. 5. 6.

~

IAA square feet High privacy 144 square feet High privacy 144 square feet High privacy 144 square feet High privacy 144 square feet High privacy 216 s~uare feet LOW privacy IWAC control

secondary activities

~: ~?=!..........................

~

/

pro~ra~in~

6

Desk/chair/layout space Desk/chalr/layout Space Desk/chair/layout space Card reader/compu=er interface

Figure 2.

DESIGN STUDIES

ACTIVITY MATRIX ~ Sd~/PertommceP~vie~ Woe~oad~,m~e,c~

~

~

Ta~I A u ~ " o ~ M ~ ~t~ ~ T~I ~nts ~mpa~ ~

~

~

~ ~uts

~

~ S~ ~ ~ta ~ ~mpum ~ ~ ~ ~w ~

~

~~

~

~

~

~ St~ ~mpu~ T ~ ~ E~nt ~ i ~ ~ ~ d W ~ of ~ t ~ E~p~nt ~mb~ &~mbl~ ~ ~ n t U ~ &~la~n ~ G ~ ~¢s W~ ~fi M ~ A ~ ~ o~Trot ~ ~ /S~in ~tt~ I F~I ~mb~

~

~

~ ~mp~ Gm S ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ t &~v~

~ ~ ~

T~ ~ c~t~gtma~i~ l~L~tin~/Gr~hics

~ud

~

~ ~ ~ w~*i-~ T~ne ~nt~ ~ s G~un ~ n 1 ~ ~

Process Engineering D e p a r t m e n t

Figure 3. other. To clarify these functional-space relationships, the programmer created a correlation diagram identifying the specialized function spaces and their connections to each other. In Figure 4, for example, the activities of the secretarial function occur within the same physical area and have a functional relationship with the activities occuring in the department office and the conference area. Since the activities of any one department within the engineering research group are often connected with the activities of other departments, the programmer then turned to identifying those relationships. Another matrix, listing each department and its divisions and functions, was created and the department managers were asked, to identify the working relationships with other departments by t'filing in the matrix. In this case, the level of interdependence among departments was measured in terms of high relation (solid bullet), medium

Vol 6 No 4 October 1985

relation (hollow bullet) and no relation (blank). The factors involved the occasional sharing of professional staff and equipment and the interactions of management. When interviews and matrices were completed for each department, a composite matrix was created and conflicting information was resolved in review sessions with managers. An interaction matrix is shown in Figure 5. These data were further reduced to clarify relationships by, drawing a correlation diagram or interaction net. Those departmental functions, regardless of organizational position, which maintained a higher degree of interaction were grouped together and their lesser relationships with other groups were identified by connecting lines. Figure 6 gives the resulting interaction net. Modelling of the correlation diagrams would enable the designer to visualize the possible arrangements of various types of spaces within departments and the

189

RELATIONSHIPS Process Engineering Department :!i!iiiii:iiii~iiiii~:i:iii~:i: New EmldoYee I n ~ i e w s

,i~i:.~iiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiii!iiii: '-~-----"-~-~°~m"'

~...~

C~i,~;"S~,/~ ................

Q..~..-..~!~E .

.

.

.

.

..... ........................ :..----

%::,~:::;:i:,i:i:~~:~'~,,.

:~,::.~

/! ::: " ::: Back~ouad Readin8 ........

_i!i::..: ,:::'~ ::::::::. .

.i

RepOrt W~tia~.

~ . ; . ~ t ~ l

~"

~ m m

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l~n~o~ wdti:W ' ii Tdeptma~

~":::~.:.:.i..

Contacts

::::::.........~ ¢ ~

:

"...............

-~:.::.:,:

" ::'::::::::::-~.::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: .~::: ":.i .:~:i:::;'::~.i.: . ~........,......., ...-.......~

::~:~:~:~.:.~:~:: ~ - ~1~ .....- '::.

" - " " - - ' - " .... ....

..... -~-a~w m ~' ~S k e t ~ i n ~ ~ ~:~:: ~ :~:.~./.:~::: w ~ . ....; .................. . : .............. ..... : .... :;: ::~;:~::~ ... .: . .~ ..... ..... ~:; ~:.: :: e x ~ . ~ ................ ~.~;:.~;~::~:.~;~ " .................: :: ........ " 1 . ':. " : '~: E ~ I ~m~ ~ ~mMy :~:::;~:~:::~::::~::~:::~ ~ ~: ~ ::::.:: :: :.:~ ~ ~ u ~ o ~ ::~::~::::~:::~ ~ ........................ I :~:::~ ~:::~/: ~ i ¢ ~ ~.y~ :::::::::::::::::::::: .:.~:.:.::~~.~:.:~:;~:: '::: :~: ~ . ~ ; ~ - ~ : ~ ;~.;~:?~ ~ ~:~:~:~.~:L -~: ::.;: ~ :~:. ~ : ~ ~ : ~ ,.::::~::~~:~; ~ ~ ; ~ : ~ : ~ . : ....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::~::~;~:~::::::~::~ :~~::::::::~:::~:,~::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ===================================== w~ ..........

.

.......

............

~:~:~:..~;~::~::~:~:;~::~:::::~:~:;;~;i;;~;~:~::~::~::~:~:~:~:~........

~

~

~

E~EE.

::::::::::::::::::::: ~

~ :::~::~::~::~:: •~::~[~ ~ • ~ ~ :~:: ~::~:: ..::;~?~:~:~;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~::~::~::.~

:. .

FIll

: :~ ~

LA~

:)

:."

Computer D~a AnaJys~s Problem Flow ( 3 ~ t i n 8 Problem Codin s Mmu~ls S t o r ~ e Como,~er Terrain d Ooera,mn D~t8 S~o~e

:~:~:~;~:: ~

~:~:I?::~[EE~ ~

"

~

:::, ,.. : .: :..::::. ~.:: ~ .. ...... : :: ::~:":~:::::'":~ ........

........ • ~-:::...-: :..: ~ , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ~ k :: ': :::':'::.~::.~::: ~::: ~~:: ~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ; ~ : ~ : : ~ ~:: ~I~EE~E~:

A.m.y

~

............ e. ................................................................ ~:~7 ....::::::::::::::::::::: L~::~~ ::~::~;~::~::::~::::::~::~::~ ::~::~::::~~::~::::~~~::::~::~::~::::~::~::::::~ .... ~:~:~;~g~:;:~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~:~:~:~:~::~:::::~::::::::::~:~::~:~:::::::~:.:.:.~:.:.~ ....

:~::~::~::~ ..............~

F~4. Departmental Relationships Eaergy and Environmental Research Division

Process Engineering Engineering Sciences

Geosciences

N

~ ~

Economics

Systems and Measurements Division

Systems Instruementation

~

Environmental Measurements Systems Engineering

~

Operations Analysis Division

Management Informatio,1 Sciences Applied Ecology

~

Teclmology Applications Center

Applications Programming Biomedical Engineering Tecllnolog.v and Resource Managemen!

~

F~5.

190

D E S I G N STUDIES

t Imtruemtmtation

F . c o n o I I ~ I ~ S

i Procem ~

I

g

~

ilF.nviromnent~l. Measurements

"

~

iApplications Prosmmmin8 ~}!. Manaoement lnfornmtion Sdeac~ ~i~i!: :!ii~iAppti~ Ecolom, i~i+++i?

i!i

..............................................................

iiiii!iiii!iii!ii~iiiTectmolo~yand ResourceManalement Figure 6.

locations of the different department functions in relation to each other. Finally, the programmer surveyed the prospective facility users to obtain their analyses as individuals and as groups (senior professionals, professionals and junior professionals) of the quality of their working environments. Two different approaches were used to collect their evaluations of present offices and preferences for 'ideal' office settings: semantic differential scales and open-ended questions. Both of these were included in a questionnaire distributed to 45 engineering research staff; 41 were completed and returned. In the semantic differential test, the individuals were asked to rate both their present office and four photographs of different office settings according to a list of 20 antonym or bipolar adjective pairs. The procedure was to mark the adjective within a five interval range that described the particular office, as in the example below. When the questionnaire results were tabulated, a composite profile of the three groups' responses (based on mean values) was charted on a blank semantic scale list. The profile of the group evaluations is shown in Figures 7 and 8. Semantic scale analysis enable the programmer to quantitatively describe user perceptions and preferences, identifying general tendencies for each of the three groups and for the whole sample of research professionals. The programmer also sought to qualitatively analyse the comments and opinions of the group reflected in their collective responses to open-ended questions. The questions requested information from individuals on: • What aspects of their present office they liked • Their preferences for the 'ideal' office

Vol 6 No 4 October 1985

• Their reasons for their ratings of the four photographed offices in the semantic differential test The programmer then derived analytical conclusions about the group's feelings toward office work environments from the collected response/s, particularly identifying differences and similaritie~ among the three professional group levels. When commenting on the characteristics of their present office, most groups felt indifferent to their environment. There were often expressions of discomfort in windowless offices while those sharing offices complained about the lack of privacy. Dissenting comments about office appearance and comfort were numerous and wide ranging, such as 'drab colours' and 'institutional'. In contrast, the groups described their ideal office as colourful, attractive, quiet and flexible. Reactions to the photographed offices were rich in detail especially with reference to appearance and image, where the users projected themselves into each setting in order to consider advantages and disadvantages. In general most facility users preferred the 'closed' to the 'open' offices as shown in the photographs.

PROGRAMME

The collected and analysed data were organized into a programme report of 214 pages. As stated in the report, a programme, 'is a prescription for a desired set of events influenced by local constraints, and it states a set of desired conditions and the methods for achieving those conditions'. The programme is also 'the first step in a sequence of phases in the design process, the results of

191

Z

stuffy quiet rigid cgsual

airy

noisy

flexib/e

formal

Figure 7.

subdued zneJed sUms8

colorful

aqeanal

weak

like

beau~ful

hostile

friendly

u~ly

unique

uncomfortable

low status

ordinary

comfortable

high status

F~8.

punic

private

cramped

light

dark

•

cold

hot

spacious

small

large

cold

~ke

weak

squ~d

colorful

u~ly

friendly

ordinary

comfortable

high status

spacious

formal

flex/hie

noisy

airy

private

dark

dirty

clean

dirty

small

ordered

chaotic

ordered

~

~

d~ke

~'ong

.a~ted

subdued

beautiful

hostile

unique

uncomfortable

low status

cramped

c~sual

rigid

quiet

stuffy

punic

light

hot

large

clean

chaotic

+

~-~..-

- _ -;~

]/

~

/

/]

I~ +;I C

~L_ JC

l~qt~l +

Figure 9. lower level

Vol 6 No 4 October 1985

193

interviews, observations and research of the departments and divisions of the engineering research group.

IMPLEMENTATION

Figure I0.

Figure 11.

which will ultimately effect some type of change in the environment'. The report was organized in four specific areas of programming activity. The first section is a systematic description of activities and activity requirements within the various departments to be housed in the engineering research facility. The second section outlines the departmental interactions, describing the critical links of professional and departmental interactions. The third section reports the results of the user perception survey on office environments. A final section contains specific recommendations for client and designer derived from

194

The information in the report provides the initial steps in establishing the programme for the new building. The programme of user needs was turned over to the design architect who had been selected by the time the study was concluded. It was intended to be used by the designer as a guide to behaviour-related space requirements and by the client as a model for continuing collection, analysis and refinement of programme data in cooporation with the designer. Furthermore, the involvement of the client in the programming process itself was intended to sensitize the users of the facility to their behaviour, their working environments and the relationships between them. The project architects were Clark, Tribble, Harris and Li. (CTH&L). Michael Tribble, partner in charge of design, together with the client group, considered four sites for the $6.6 million Semiconductor Laboratory and Engineering Office Building. The location that was selected brought the microelectronics group adjacent to their present Research Triangle laboratory facilities used by the Engineering Division. This decision was influenced by the department interaction net (Figure 6) and the recommendation that the engineering departments be placed in closer proximity to each other. During the programming phase of this project the Microelectronics Laboratory was located in a building that was a considerable distance from the main facility. These facility users were identified as one of the groups experiencing environmental stress related to poor laboratory conditions and their remote location. Both client and architect reported a greater sensitivity to the distance problem than was pointed out in the programme. The results of previous experience with poorly designed facilities left the users with low expectations of environmental possibilities. Since previous discussions with facility users revealed the impact of the environment on productivity and job satisfaction, CTH&L and the client supported the development of high quality facilities. User preferences for private offices separated from the laboratory influenced CTH&L's decision to design closed offices with a view, privacy and natural light for all professional staff. Discussions with the office workers prior to the move indicated that the central clerical pool was poorly located to support the professional staff and inadequately illuminated. Recognizing this CTH&L rearranged the clerical pool into groups adjacent to staff offices where they were provided with ample natural light; a striking difference from their previous office environment (Figure 9). The architects felt that the programme permitted them to continue the dialogue with the client and users that had been initiated. This provided the continuity necessary to further identify and clarify important issues such

DESIGN STUDIES

as the constantly changing technology that required flexibility to allow for innovations. Involvement in the programming process raised their awareness of client/user to the impact and design on their performance. C T H & L reported this as a major contributing factor to produce an effective building. The architects better understood the professional hierarchy, the users' concerns and expectations. The vice president of the Research Triangle Institute called the facility

Vol 6 No 4 October 1985

'extraordinary, complex, unique and the finest building on the campus'.

REFERENCE

1 Sanoff, H 'Methods of architectural programming' Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA (1977)

195