An Exploration of the Effects of

Creative Office Design Within Workplaces

by
Mariel Vandeloo
[email protected]

Submitted to OCAD University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Design
in
Inclusive Design

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 2014

© Mariel Vandeloo, 2014

i
 Author’s Declaration

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this Major Research Project

(MRP). This is a true copy of the MRP, including any required final revisions, as

accepted by my examiners.

I authorize OCAD University to lend this MRP to other institutions or

individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.

I understand that my MRP may be made electronically available to the

public.

I further authorize OCAD University to reproduce this MRP by other

means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the

purpose of scholarly research.

Mariel Vandeloo

ii
 Abstract

This study examines the latest phenomena of creative office design; a

new concept of open-planning that focuses on boosting creative culture through

the designed work environment. The effects of creative workplaces on the users

within is explored, with attention to employee creativity, engagement, and levels

of distraction. Does a workplace that has embraced creative office design, increase

creativity resulting in a greater and more innovative system? A framework

is designed to gain insights and understandings about the factors that affect

creative output. This framework suggests that a creative workplace ecosystem is

fabricated through three facets; social culture, tools and materials, and cognitive

experiences. Four case studies are examined and discussed according to the

framework, including two corporate offices, a public collaborative workspace,

and the learning spaces of a University program. Findings show that the optimal

workplace for fostering creativity is an environment where differing core values

can be explored, without interference from each other. Values explored in this

study include collaboration, chance encounters, curiosity, available tools, creative

outlets, employee involvement, encouraged failure, a focus on wellbeing, a sense

of community and attainable opportunities.

Keywords

Creative Workplace, Inclusive Design, Innovation, Work Environment

iii
 Acknowledgments

Discussions and critiques have fueled and informed this project. I wish to

acknowledge the influence of particular people and ideas in those discussions.

My principle advisor, Tom Barker for the discussions and opportunities

which inspired, challenged and honed the ideas which founded the research.

Also for maintaining focus on the direction and scope of the project.

I acknowledge with deep gratitude the contribution of my external advisor,

Dr. Marilyn Ballantyne who spent countless hours aiding in the comprehension of

difficult research processes and analyses.

Finally, I would like to thank Heather Urquhart for her support and

conviction that I could do whatever I set my mind to, while also providing a keen

editorial eye and helping me to confront my predicament of comma over usage.

iv
 Table Of Contents

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2

2.0 The Changing Workplace: The Evolution of Creative Environments . . . . . . 3

2.1 The Emergence of Office Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
2.2 The Current Standing of Creative Workplace Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Ambiguous Theories of Environment and Creativity Relation . . . . 5-10

3.0 Understanding Creativity and Influencing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Understanding Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13
3.2 Techniques for Overcoming Creative Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-17
3.3 Challenges of Measuring Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18

4.0 Towards a Framework for Environment & Creativity Associations . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Associations Between the Designed Environment and Creativity. 19-20
4.2 Factors Affecting Social Culture/Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-22
4.3 Tools to Support Creative Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4 Factors Affecting Cognitive Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-25
4.5 Engagement/Stimulation and Creativity Associations
. . . . . . . . . . . 26-27
4.6 Disengagement/Distraction and Creativity Associations . . . . . . . . 27-28

5.0 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 Research Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-32
5.2 Contextual Search and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 Ethnographic & Environmental Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4 Participant Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-34
5.5 Focus Group Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-35
5.6 Ethics & Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

v
6.0 Space Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1 OCAD University Digital Futures Learning Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1.2 Study Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-37
6.1.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-45
6.2 Office of Google/Youtube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2.2 Study Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-50
6.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-53
6.3 Bento Miso Collaboration Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.3.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.3.2 Study Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-55
6.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-58
6.4 Office of Idea Couture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.4.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58-59
6.4.2 Study Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-63
6.4.3 Results
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-68

7.0 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7.1 Emerging Themes from Quantitative Results and Participant
Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69-75
7.2 Future Implications in Office Design & Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-77

8.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78-83

9.0 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix A: Survey Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84-85
Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86-87
Appendix C: Letter of Participant Invitation / Consent Form . . . . . . . . 88-90
Appendix D: REB Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix E: Personal Communications Transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-107

vi
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Framework for understanding associations between the designed

environment and the resulting creative output from individuals within.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 2: Ceiling and Floor plans of the redesigned student learning space. . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 3: Collaborative OCAD DFI learning space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 4: An image showing clutter which was found to be distracting for some
students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 5: Rows of lockers are provided for students to use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 6: An image of the small kitchen area in the space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 7: Results from the survey indicating that most students felt that materials and
equipment were only slightly available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 8: Collaborative spaces for students to interact.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 9: Survey results showing that most students perceived the environment to be
only slightly conducive to creative work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 10: A drum set in the music room where people can take a break from their
work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 11: A collaborative art piece, where a local artist drew a stencil of the Toronto
skyline, and visitors of the office coloured in the blanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 12: A unique space to have a meeting, or relax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 13: A meeting room with a pool table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 14: A non-traditional meeting room with an outdoor theme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 15: Seating in the cafeteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Figure 16: A micro-kitchen providing healthy snacks and communal seating. . . . . . . . 50
Figure 17: A collaborative space at Bento Miso.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 18: Tools used for idea generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 19: An event which is hosted at the adaptable space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 20: The entrance to the Idea Couture Toronto location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 21: White umbrellas hanging from the ceiling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 22: The reception area of Idea Couture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 23: The flexible work environment at Idea Couture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

vii
Figure 24: The kitchen and communal eating area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 25: A place to have a meeting over tea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 26: A room with tools and equipment for prototyping.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 27: Survey results indicate the availability of creative outlets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 28: The survey results showing that mistakes were not detrimental or were
only slightly detremental to creative motivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 29: A table displays the Idea Couture’s quarterly magazine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

List of Tables

Table 1: Recurring themes across study sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

viii
1.0 Introduction

“An office workplace, like so many other products and services in the

future, will fail if it only manages to be ordinary,” states Adryan Bell (2010),

workplace design analyst. It is for this reason that consequently many creative

organizations are embracing new outlets to express their values and core

concepts. Due to advancing technologies and diverse work styles, the field of

workplace innovation is in a state of immense change and re-invention. As a

result of this changing landscape, it is a necessity for these environments to

compete with a range of physical and virtual work opportunities. The modern

workplace is now obligated to attract employees and reinforce its values in novel

and imaginative ways.

The purpose of this study is to establish the effects that creative office

design has on employees within an organization, with attention to levels of

creativity, engagement and distraction. Does a workplace that has embraced

creative office design increase creativity resulting in a greater and more innovative

system? How does individual engagement affect this creative output? Are
distractions more prominent in these types of surroundings? A variety of diverse

creative environments will be explored with a focus on the inclusive nature of the

design and the effects of creativity on the individuals.

The intention of this study is to address the gap in knowledge within

the fields of architecture, design and psychology. Frequently, office environments

are analyzed through individual aspects and it is uncommon for all of the

aforementioned facets to be considered concurrently. In this study, a framework

1
is designed in order to gain insights and understandings about the factors that

affect creative output. The conceived framework [Figure 1] is designed to take into

consideration all aspects which bridge the physical environment to the creative

output in a designed workplace; social culture, tools and materials, and cognitive

experiences. This framework can be utilized to inform and supplement existing

practice in which architects and designers use their experience or intuition to

design for optimal user creativity. Additionally, the study will empower workplace
users to audit their own environments and identify changes that they may

construct to increase their creative potential.

By executing this study, one can gain a higher level of understanding of the

characteristics within creative environments that positively affects the occupants

within it with regards to creativity, engagement and levels of distraction. The

findings of this research will serve as a guide for future designers involved in

the development of creative workplaces. The consequential achievements aim

to contribute to the fields of architecture, design and creative research with

the desired outcome to advise and inspire those who design in inspirational,
innovative work environments.

2
2.0 The Changing Workplace: The Evolution of Creative Work
Environments

2.1 The Emergence of Office Design

Over the past century office design has undergone many transformations

to facilitate different demands such as collaboration, privacy, interaction,

autonomy, in hopes of a more productive and achieving system. These

transformations have reflected changing attitudes among employees, according

to the office arrangement.

The emergence of office planning dates back to the early nineteen

hundreds when American engineer, Frederick Taylor, who was known for his

obsession with productivity developed Taylor-ism; an open environment where

bosses could overlook their employees from private offices, exposing individuals

to supervision, similar to a factory floor (Kuang, 2009). This open-plan design

employed principles of distance and visibility, suggesting a hierarchy in status

between employees and managers (Hofbauer, 2000). Eventually values shifted

from managerial to communicative, and office landscaping, an informal and

interactive style of office design became popular. In 1964, the first line of

modular office furniture, entitled Action Office featuring low dividers and semi-

enclosed work surfaces was designed and manufactured by Herman Miller

(Kuang, 2009). This influential product line is better known today as the cubicle.

Originally designed to encourage moderate interaction, the cubicle concept

was overexerted, creating a “sea” of middle managers (Kuang, 2009). These

walls were broken down with the arrival of the telecommunications revolution.

3
The concept of virtual offices began to emerge, although failed to proliferate

due to overwhelmingly negative responses from both employees and upper

management. In an effort to solve the issue of small headquarters and a quickly

expanding staff, Chiat/Day developed the virtual office “and equipped everyone

with a mobile phone, a laptop and a personal locker, and turned a problem into a

much vaunted workplace experiment” (Anderton, 1998). Unfortunately, shortly

after this implementation of the virtual office, productivity dramatically dropped

and the firm quickly terminated this office design approach.

Many attribute the beginnings of this workplace design revolution to the

emergence of Apple’s informal attitude and social corporate culture. The Apple

company valued creativity, new initiatives and opposed strict timetables, rigid

uniforms, and corporate structures. “New terms like ‘hot-desking’ and ‘hotelling’

entered the vocabulary of office design and an increasing number of workplaces

have come to contain ‘chill-out rooms’ and fitness centers” (Bell, 2007).

Google was the first to step away from traditional corporate office design,
and embrace architectural and interior design concepts. What was once an

autonomous environment, that valued privacy and seclusion was now comprised

of various types of imaginative spaces, both secluded and collaborative, with

the intent of fostering creativity and innovation. However, not all of Google is

arranged in this way. As outlined by recent Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, “there is

only a small part of Google that works like this: the parts where new ideas and

innovations are developed” (Cummings, Thanem & Värlander 2011). Most of the

organization is very ‘tight’ and conventional . The company could not function

otherwise (Bilton & Cummings, 2010). In recent years, creative companies have

4
facilitated a combination of both creative open spaces, and private secluded

spaces for optimal innovation and productivity.

2.2 The Current Standing of Creative Workplace Design

The field of workplace innovation is in a state of immense change and

re-invention, due to advancing technologies and diverse work styles. Because of

this changing landscape, workplace environments need to compete with a range

of physical and virtual work opportunities. The modern workplace now needs to

attract employees and reinforce its organizational values in new and imaginative

ways.

This increase in competition for innovative workplace culture, can explain

the latest phenomena of creative office design; a new concept of open-planning

that focuses on boosting creative culture through the designed work environment,

including spaces that reflect the core values of the company. “Conceptualizations

of creativity have suggested that the physical environment plays an important

role in facilitating the development of creative processes and products” (Amabile,

1988). By removing spatial and social structures, the intention is to “increase

performance by fostering spontaneous interaction, fun, creativity, and learning”

(Cummings, Thanem & Värlander, 2011). In present day environments this is

associated with creative layouts that use unique colours, graphics, furnishings,

and lighting features; variations in floor coverings and screening features with

the intention of creating a space that is positive and enticing to its visitors and

occupants.

5
2.3 Ambiguous Theories of Environment and Creativity Relation

Little empirical investigation has been given to this new and emerging

field, specifically how the physical environment affects individuals’ perceptions of

creativity. The rapidly emerging concepts of creative office design have prompted

a growing interest amongst researchers, with specific attention towards the

values that it offers organizations and individuals. Preliminary research findings

within this stream remain divided, contradictory, and inconclusive (Maher & von

Hippel, 2005). Thus, further study is needed.

Creative office design efforts are largely based on company values rather

than evaluation research; the social culture and the ideas generated regarding the

optimal environment for fostering creativity. A number of workplace innovation

studies have presented differing theories of best practices for stimulating

creativity within the occupational environment. Common themes include

cohesive collaboration and open office design as a system to foster creativity,

conflict and evaluation as creative drivers and environmental cues which create

cognitive ingenuity (Maher & Von Hippel, 2005 Stokols, Clitheroe & Zumidzinas,
2002, Thanem & Värlander, 2011). Conversely, other studies have shown that

these practices are complicated and flawed, hindering the stimulation of creative

output (Davis, Leach & Clegg, 2010, Porter, 2013, Stokols, Clitheroe & Zumidzinas,

2002, Thanem & Värlander, 2011).

Firstly, the notion of cohesion and collaboration as influencing factors to

increase employee well-being and foster creativity is explored. When envisioning

creative teams one typically envisions open floor plans, relaxed dress codes and

6
unrestricted social interaction. Research has found that work spaces in open

office design are flexible, allowing for reduced set-up and renovation time,

therefore accommodating greater numbers of employees in smaller spaces,

that in turn facilitates social interaction and communication (Zahn, 1991). These

workspace elements have been shown to improve job satisfaction, employee

morale, information exchange and productivity.

The study, Collaborative digital environments to enhance the creativity of

designers, directly shows the correlation between social interaction and creative

output. Findings showed that the social environment is closely related to the

success of idea generation in creative processes (Karakaya & Demirkan, 2014).

Additional findings suggest that the ideas produced, as a result of group critiques,

enhanced creativity in collaborative environments (Karakaya & Demirkan,

2014). Through exploration of this type of social interaction, it is apparent that

collaboration is an essential component of creative processes.

An opposing viewpoint suggests conflict and evaluation are essential

drivers of a creative environment. Creativity and innovation expert, David Burkus

(2014), states “An excessive focus on cohesiveness, however can actually dampen

a team’s creativity. It can narrow down options and cause those with a unique

perspective to censor themselves rather than risk not being seen as part of the

team.” It is imperative for organizations to recognize the value of conflict, rather

than complete cohesion for this very reason. A further study by Cummings and

colleagues solidifies Burkus’ statement, and proposes that the aforementioned

creative environment may “undermine the kind of creativity that it is intended

to foster, producing unforeseen forms of employee creativity that normalize

7
rather than disrupt structures and boundaries” (Cummings, Thanem & Värlander

2011). In this study, their findings showed that environmental distractions and

poor social climate can restrict experiences of creativity by interfering with

concentration and heightening feelings of unpredictability.

Burkus (2014), describes this belief as the cohesive myth; the assumption

that “creative people thrive in fun, playful atmospheres and that they must
therefore need playful interactions.” The belief that designing in for cohesive

teams to suspend criticism and produce exceptional creativity, is in fact quite

flawed. The organizational psychologist Matthew Davis reviewed more than a

hundred studies regarding office environments. He discovered that open offices

often foster a symbolic sense of organizational mission making employees feel

like they were part of a more laid-back, innovative enterprise. However, these

types of environmental structures were damaging to the workers’ attention

spans, productivity, creative thinking and satisfaction (Davis, Leach & Clegg

2011). Creative insight is not always a product of cohesive team-work but it is

often the opposite; conflict.

A subsequent conjecture suggests cognitive responses to architectural and

interior design are imperative to stimulating creativity (Vartanian, Kwiatkowski

& Martindale, 1999, Jaffe, 2013) . Architects and designers use environmental

cues to change behaviour, thus influencing the way that individuals think. For

example, architectural research has determined that persons within rooms with

high ceilings are more apt to think abstractly, while persons in rooms with low

ceilings are more apt to perform tasks requiring attention to detail (McGinn,

2013). These architectural cues may suggest the concepts of wayfinding, safety

8
and emotion. However, these designed experiences can also be a cause for

employee distraction and a sense of disturbance. Certain environmental prompts

can “frustrate rather than facilitate human relations and make life harder for some

humans” (Cummings, Thanem & Värlander 2011). This too poses conflicting

ideas of what truly aids in the production of creative work.

In recent years, a growing number of organizations are integrating values

suggested by several of these notions through creative strategies. Pixar, for

example, incorporates a combination of values and beliefs about what fosters

creativity, including collaboration, social culture, cognitive responses, conflict

and disagreement. At this impressive corporation, creative processes rely on

structured conflict; the perfect balance between collaboration and dispute. The

company’s California campus is an architectural wonder which encourages

collaboration, an active social culture, and creative freedom. The headquarters

feature eccentric offices, a football-field sized atrium, a large theatre, a fitness

center and a hidden cocktail lounge. It is not surprising that this detailed,

material-focused, timeless architectural marvel was the brain child of Steve Jobs,
now renamed The Steve Jobs Building, after its creator (Burkus, 2014). “The Pixar

teams collaborative creativity isn’t just evidenced in their films; it can be seen in

how they’ve transformed all areas of Pixar headquarters” (Burkus, 2014).

What is not as easily noticed as the astounding architecture, is the attention

that is given to the importance of conflict amongst the employees, which is highly

valued at the company. Areas where crucial creative meetings and discussions

are held have been designed in a way that embraces creative competition and

welcomes criticism. Animators, directors and computer scientists engage in

9
“shredding” of animations where “no detail is too small to critique, and no one is

prohibited from challenging someone else’s work” (Burkus, 2014).

Pixar embodies an appropriate variation of practices but what is most

significant and valuable is that every environmental detail is the reflection and

product of their core beliefs and values. Ed Catmull, president of Walt Disney

Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios believes in empowering

employees through creative freedom, a healthy social culture, a communicative

environment, and embracing “post-mortems” or blunders (2008). By creating

environments that reflect these values, Pixar has developed an inspiring and

imaginative headquarters, where individuals produce a plethora of creative work.

10
3.0 Understanding Creativity and Influencing Factors

3.1 Understanding Creativity

Creativity in particular has been promoted as a means of staying ahead

of the competition, the sole motive for innovation and reinvention. This belief has
created a demand for facilitating creative environments within organizations, in

both creative and business industries.

“People tend to think of creativity as a mysterious solo act,” reducing

products to a single idea (Catmull, 2008). However, creativity is messy; it

involves many people from differing disciplines, working together to deconstruct

problems, and create effective solutions. The creative process involves filtering

through mass amounts of ideas to produce a series of cohesive ideas, resulting in

some form of creative output.

Some argue that creativity simply cannot be explained. John Cleese,

comedian, writer and film producer states that creativity is not a talent, but a

way of operating. “Creative people are able to put themselves into a certain state

or way of operating, which allows the natural creativity to function (Cleese, 1991).

Through a psychological lens, creativity has traditionally been described to

incorporate originality and functionality. Put differently, creativity is theoretically

a combination of doing something that hasn’t been done before, and producing

an idea that provides use or function. However, since this theory emerged, further

11
research and inquiry have resulted in a deeper understanding and expanded

definition of creativity.

In order to examine creativity, one must first understand the foundational

knowledge of the psychology around how creativity is experienced. Daniel

Kahneman (2011), renowned psychologist and Nobel prize winner, provided

explanation to the conditions under which creativity occurs. He explained the

experience of creativity by first explaining cognitive ease and cognitive strain. An

individual is at cognitive ease when the surroundings are calm and nonthreatening,

and understanding comes effortlessly. For example, an individual is at cognitive

ease when in a good mood, or text is in a clear font and easily legibly, or they have

a smile on their face. Kahneman recognized the condition under which creativity

can foster cognitive ease; “When in a good mood, people become more intuitive

and more creative but also less vigilant and more prone to logical errors”(2011).

Conversely, an individual experiences cognitive strain when there is a challenging

level of mental effort, unmet demands or surrounding distractions. “When we

are uncomfortable and unhappy, we lose touch with our intuition” (Khaneman,
2011). John Cleese refers to these circumstances as an open and closed mind;

“creativity is not possible in the closed mood” (2011). He further explained

the importance of harnessing both modes, “We need to be in the open mode

when pondering a problem — but! — once we come up with a solution, we must

then switch to the closed mode to implement it. Because once we’ve made a

decision, we are efficient only if we go through with it decisively, undistracted

by doubts about its correctness” (2011). It is therefore understood that when an

environment produces pleasant, comfortable experiences upon those within it,

the individuals will be at cognitive ease, resulting in a more intuitive and creative

12
body. In order to act on that creative thought, one must think logically with a

higher level of mental effort, switching back to the closed mode.

These perceptions of creativity are neurologically related to the physical

environment. Architecture and neuroscience researcher, Oshin Vartanain

examines various disciplines including architecture, creativity, and our neural

responses to the physical environment. He has discovered revolutionary findings

in these fields; “advances in neuroscience are now able to explain the ways in

which we perceive the world around us and navigate in space and the way our

physical environment can affect our cognition, problem-solving ability and mood”

(McGinn, 2013). Recently he revealed how both men and women prefer curved

spaces, due to its resemblance of natural forms, welcoming impression, and

safety (as sharp angles create a sense of danger). These architectural responses

also include how architecture can affect persons creative behaviour. For example,

it has been found that “higher ceilings tend to promote abstract thinking, while

under lower ceilings people are more likely to think concretely,” also known as the

cathedral effect (McGinn, 2013). It becomes clear that the physical environment
has a direct correlation to creativity of those within the space; “physical

environments that are engineered to be cognitively and perceptually stimulating

can enhance creativity” (Amabile et al, 1996).

Creativity is a phenomenon where something original and valuable is

created such as an idea or solution. This phenomenon can be explained through

many facets, including psychology and cognitive science. The potential for

fostering creativity however, still remains a contentious topic to be explored.

13
3.2 Techniques for Overcoming Creative Blocks

It is important to consider what impedes creativity and how to best

overcome these obstructions, in order to fully understand what fosters creativity.

Many creatives experience this obstruction, which is more commonly referred

to as a creative block. Various types of creative blocks exist including cognitive,

habitual, and communicative.

Most cases of obstructions exist cognitively; mental traps, emotional

barriers, personal problems causing decreased focus, or an overwhelm of

obligations. These factors cause a general lack of focus and an increase in

stress, mental exhaustion and mental distractions (McGuinness, 2013). These

mechanism of experienceing obstructions can be explained through Kahneman’s

theory of cognitive ease/strain (2011). When individuals encounter these

obstructions, they experience cognitive strain where creativity cannot foster.

A creative block exists when an individual becomes stuck in this mode. “Under

the pressures which are all too familiar to us, we tend to maintain tunnel vision

at times when we really need to step back and contemplate the wider view“
(Cleese, 1991).When these blocks do not subsist, the mind becomes comfortable

at cognitive ease and creativity can flourish.

Creative blocks occur when the creative process is not compatible with

personal work habits. This may consist of unsuiting hours of work, levels of effort,

or intensity of stimulation which cause disturbances in daily work, therefore

preventing creative output.

14
 Communication is another factor that influences the production of creative

ideas. Frequently in creative organizations, collaboration and communication

are encouraged, organizing persons into small teams. Efficient communication

is essential, not only for producing great products and services, but also for

maximizing individual creativity. When working with others “tensions are

inevitable, and can make it hard to do your best work — especially if you have one

of those proverbial ‘difficult people’ in your working life” (McGuinness, 2013).

There is also a fear that ideas expressed will be criticized and attacked. This

fear inhibits creative ideas from being expressed, that in turn interferes with the

creative process.

Fortunately, there are many techniques available to overcome creative

blocks, by addressing changes in both attitudes and behaviours such as thinking

positively, scratching, and purging ideas. Planning for creative ideation is a large

part of developing creative habits and can be done in a variety of ways. ”Planning

can be a receptive process, where information or stimulus serves to fill up the

imaginative reserves of the individual, and aids in creative inspiration” (Ray,

2010). By recognizing, planning, and changing habits, individuals can cultivate a

creative process and overcome the block.

Thinking positively is a practice that can change the way one works through

the creative process, embracing challenges with an attitude of empowerment.

This change in perspective can help to eliminate fears which enable blocks. “To

be able to face one’s fears with the help of positive affirmations and ridding the

mind of the ‘chatterbox’, whose habit it is to fill the subconscious with negativity

and self-doubt, is necessary for the individual to move forward in his/her

15
creative recovery” (Ray, 2010). The extensive research study, Optimism Predicting

Employees’ Creativity: The Mediating Role of Positive Affect and the Positivity Ratio,

shows exemplary findings for understanding the benefits of optimism in the

workplace (Rego, Sousa, Marques & Pina e Cunha, 2012). The study stresses that

optimism promotes and predicts creativity for both individuals and organizations

as a whole.

A common technique used to change behaviour is what Twyla Tharp

(2006) calls scratching. Scratching can be explained as conscious focus put

towards discovering creative inspiration. Examples of scratching vary and can

include changing one’s environment, reading books, or looking to others for ideas

or inspiration. It must be an activity that is the result of a conscious effort to

foster creative inspiration. This method aims to “guide the individual to make

connections, create thematic unification, and be inspired in his/her own creative

work“(Ray, 2010).

Purging ideas is another useful technique to open the flow of creativity.

This purge can be accomplished through writing out ideas without consciously

thinking about what is being written. Often times individuals use large sheets of

paper, or Post-It Note® mind maps to quickly express all possible ideas. Others

prefer to engage in linear writing, a method that American teacher and artist,

Julia Cameron (1992) calls morning pages. The concept of morning pages is to

eradicate all thoughts and ideas that are causing creative blocks. “It is necessary

for one to write in this manner in order to get around the logical, censoring part

of one’s brain to the artistic, inventive part” (Cameron, 1992). This process can

also suggest new ideas and streams of creative thinking.

16
 There are numerous examples of techniques that have been used to

overcome creative blocks. Through the designed study, techniques utilized in

today’s creative work environments will be explored further, from the perspectives

of the employees through personal narratives (see 6.0, Space Studies).

3.3 Challenges of Measuring Creativity

Creativity can be as difficult to measure as it is to understand. In order to

measure this experience, it must be acknowledged that one can only measure

perceived support for creativity. In the study, Qualities of Work Environments

that Promote Perceived Support for Creativity, the researchers examined physical

predictors of workplace creativity and measured the perceived support for

creativity, rather than attempting to understand individual creativity, and provided

scale items with Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients, suggesting questions

with strong reliability. (Stokols, Clitheroe, & Zmuidzinas 2002). Because

creativity is a controversial topic, it is more logical to study the perceived support

for creativity or the individuals understanding of their ability to be creative. This

can be achieved through the completion of survey questions and participant

narratives.

In the study Open Space = Open Minds?, the researchers utilized case

study research design to investigate this “new spirit” of open and pro-creative

workplace design, and recommended methods for quantifying creativity

(Cummings, Thanem & Värlander 2011). Case studies are particularly useful

for developing hypotheses regarding organizational behaviour, especially when

17
exploring topics not yet dominated or explained by a well developed theory (Yin,

2003). Methods from the study conducted by Yin, are replicated and modified,

so that creativity can be compared and quantified in this research.

In recent years, more rigourous research methods using experimental

designs have been developed to assess creativity. For example, the Abbreviated

Torrance Test for Adults, is an applicable test, which quantifies both the figural
and verbal creative strengths, through responses to various creative trials of

divergent thinking and problem-solving (Goff & Torrance, 2002). Outcomes of

this experiment yield scores in four categories; 1) Fluency (ability to generate

numerous unique responses), 2) Originality (ability to generate unusual or

infrequent responses), 3) Elaboration (ability to add detail to creative responses),

and 4) Flexibility (ability to respond to the same object in multiple unique ways).

Although these tests are not used in this study, ideas and motives are considered

during the participant interactions.

18
4.0 Towards a Framework for Environment & Creativity Associations

4.1 Associations Between the Designed Environment and Creativity

Analysis of previous workplace design literature provides elements

to create a detailed infrastructure for comprehension of creativity in the work

environment. This framework creates an understanding of the elements which

generate the methods and findings of the study.

A framework is generated guide the study; to understand and appreciate

how the questionnaire and the focus groups are designed to evaluate creativity,

considering all of the contributing factors, including the secondary outcomes of

engagement and levels of distractions [Figure 1]. This framework rationalizes that

creative office design affects employees experience of creativity through three

facets; social culture, tools and materials and cognitive experience. Through

consideration and explanation of these three facets, the affects of the physical

environment on the experience of creativity can be understood.

The following section of the research paper discusses the three facets

which affect employee experiences in the workplace. First, the factors affecting

social culture are explained (organizational values, social and technical rules,

individual differences) following with the importance of accessible tools and

materials, and finally the factors affecting cognitive experiences (previous

knowledge, past experiences, and individual differences). The outcomes of these

facets are then explained with a focus on two opposing outcomes; engagement/

stimulation and disengagement/distraction. In the explanation of these

19
 Organization Social & Individual
Values Technical Rules Differences

Social Disengage
Culture Engage

+
Workplace Tools & Accessible
Stimulation &
Environment Materials Non-Accessible
Sustanance of
Creativity
+
Cognitive Stimulate
Experiences Distract

Previous Past Individual

Knowledge Experiences Differences

Figure 1: Framework for understanding associations between the designed environment and the
resulting creative output from individuals within.

outcomes, it is discussed how employees experience of creativity is affected.

Thus, a framework is conceived and connections are made; contributing factors

affect the three facets, which result in outcomes, which produce some level of

creativity within the workplace environment [Figure 1].

4.2 Factors Affecting Social Culture/Climate.

Social culture consists of company values, social and technical rules,

and individual differences. The experience of creativity is largely dependent

upon how social culture is encountered, resulting in employee engagement or

disengagement.

20
 Company values are reflected in the social culture of the organization.

Frequently these values entail themes of respect, divergent thinking, passion and

responsibility. For example, two of the eight official company values at Amazon

are: 1) “Vocally Self Critical” and 2) “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit”

(Amazon.com Inc, 2014). Organizations utilize diverse methods to permeate

these values into all aspects of the company, predominantly through the social

culture. Amazon enforces these values by allowing them to influence all decision-
making and the generation of feedback. In the majority of creative corporations

the company values define the social culture through implementation of the

organizational values, social and technical rules, and recognizing individual

differences.

Leading the way in creative office design is Corus Entertainment with

their new waterfront facility, Corus Quay. It is an excellent example of a company

which recognizes the importance of a healthy social culture. The facility features

organizational design that sets a new standard for broadcast and content

operations globally. Values of Corus Entertainment include teamwork, innovation,

and initiative which are reflected in the inventive space (Corus Entertainment,

2014). The 460,000 square foot office is designed as an open concept work

environment to foster collaboration and innovation, complete with a 3-story slide

(Corus Entertainment, 2014). It is the implementation and seamless integration

of these values, which create the enjoyable social culture.

Social and technical rules also shape and define the social culture. To

maintain an organized social philosophy certain rules exist, some instinctive and

innate, and others learned. For example, what was once considered inefficient

21
personal chatter, is now becoming recognized as informal interactions. For fellow

employees to purposely stop and converse with each other, they must perceive

that this is socially acceptable conduct (Fayard and Weeks, 2007). These types

of social and technical rules affect individuals’ behaviours which can alter and

shape the social culture.

Individual differences, both psychological and physical, influence the

social environment. Specifically, the interaction of differing personalities, shape

the communication within a workplace. An immense quantity of research

exists regarding personalities within the workplace. What is imperative to

recognize is that these personalities exist and work differently together. A study

on team effectiveness demonstrates that “individuals training on the type of

personality of team members assisted them to improve communication, trust

and interdependence, essential characteristics of an effective team” (Varvel,

Adams, Pridie & Ulloa, 2004). Therefore substantiating that the understanding of

individual differences in personality can enhance team effectiveness and further

shape the social culture. A common method for analyzing differing personalities

is the Myers Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI). This analysis is helpful for personal
recognition, as well as raising awareness in a workplace of differing personalities,

and work styles (Varvel, Adams, Pridie & Ulloa, 2004).

Individual differences of mental illness and physical disability are further

addressed in 4.4 Factors Affecting Cognitive Experiences.

22
4.3 Tools to Support Creative Behaviour

As in any workplace, there are essential tools and materials needed to

accommodate the work being accomplished. Specifically in creative workplaces,

the required tools and materials need to be accessible, in order to support

ingenious, inspired behaviour. These tools comprise of basic supportive properties,

including comfortable furniture, inclusive software, appropriate lighting, suitable

technological devices, and diverse ideation tools. Tools that support seamless

communication and collaboration reduce barriers, allowing creative ideas to

prosper. Without these tools and materials, creative work is far more challenging

to pursue and successfully achieve.

4.4 Factors Affecting Cognitive Experiences

Cognitive experience is a reflection of previous knowledge, past

experiences and individual differences. The understanding of creativity is

dependent upon living through cognitive encounters which are found to be either

stimulating or distracting.

Responses to and interaction with any environment is subjective to the

individual, resulting in differing experiences of the same space. This is largely

attributed to the divergence of previous knowledge, past experiences and personal

differences. Using Gibson’s (1979) concept of affordances, we can begin to

understand how spatial design affects a person’s responses within an environment.

Gibson (1979) defined this concept as the action possibilities concealed in an

environment, in relation to the individual recognition and capabilities. Simply

23
put, affordances are cues which make certain actions available, suggesting the

presentation of specific behaviours. For example, a round door knob would afford

twisting, while a vertical door panel would afford pushing. “But affordances are

also relational and subjective aspects of the environment — what an environment

affords is different for different users” (Cummings, Thanem & Värlander 2011).

Often individuals have differing responses due to their past and individual unique

personalities. In addition, affordances in “certain environments and artifacts are

governed by social or technical rules that must be learned by it’s users” (Hutchby,

2001). For example, for employees to engage in social interaction during work

hours, they must feel that it is socially acceptable to do so. Since affordances

are experienced very differently by each individual, it is imperative to consider

this concept when exploring how environments foster creativity. What fiercely

stimulates some may fervently discourage others.

A significant consideration when designing an environment for creative

individuals, is to take into account their character and individuality. This

includes personality traits, and although often not considered, their mental and
psychological state of mind. Recent work by Arnold Ludwig, PhD, Kay Jamison,

PhD, and James Kaufman, PhD has proven that “artists tend to show higher rates

of mental illness and related symptoms than the average population” (Kersting,

2003). It has been discovered that artists and creators are more likely to have

Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD

& ADHD). A recent study determined that “adults with ADHD showed higher

levels of original creative thinking … and higher levels of real-world creative

achievement, compared to adults without ADHD,” an emancipatory finding

(White & Shah, 2011). Recurring characteristics of both creative persons and

24
individuals with ADD, include relatively high divergent thinking ability and the

ability to be less influenced by contextual constraints during creative activities

(White & Shah). Designing for these types of individuals can pose challenges;

with these divergent thinkers, the environment must be engaging without causing

distractions. It is a delicate balance between generating a sense of creativity

versus a disruptive commotion in the workplace.

“Some individuals appear better able than others to cope with the

excessive stimulation inherent to the open-plan office environment” (Maher &

Von Hippel, 2005). Personal abilities can affect the way an individual experiences

an environment, both mentally/psychologically and physically. Persons with

physical disabilities experience environments vastly differently, often meeting

with enormous challenges. When environments are not carefully considered

and designed to include these individuals’ needs, substantial frustrations may

arise, be it issues regarding sight, navigation, communication and mobility.

These substantial frustrations may foster negative associations with the space,

yielding cognitive strain thus prohibiting a creative mind set. For example, digital
signage designed to assist people navigate through an environment, could cause

significant aggravation for persons with visual impairments, related to issues

with contrast, size and brightness. Conversely, in a well-designed and inclusive

space, positive associations are personally generated through employee comfort

by finding their way.

25
4.5 Engagement/Stimulation and Creativity Associations

“The challenge today is not just retaining talented people, but fully

engaging them, capturing their minds and hearts at each stage of their work

lives” (Lockwood, 2007). Engagement is a complex concept, which is profoundly

influenced by environmental factors and the workplace culture. The term

engagement can be understood as the psychological states, traits and behaviours

of individuals within a workplace, or the emotional and functional commitment

an employee has to his or her organization.

Engagement is vital to any field of work and includes essential elements

such as retaining employees, producing quality products and overall performance

excellence. A recent study conducted by Dale Carnegie Training and MSW

revealed that companies with engaged employees outperform those without,

by up to 202% (Importance of Employee Engagement, 2012). The question that

organizations need to consider is, how can the physical environment provide

emotional and functional engagement to those within it?

It has been determined that levels of engagement and levels of creativity

are linear associations. A group of psychologically engaged individuals is more

likely to be a more inspired and productive group. In an examination of creative

teams, results of cluster analysis showed that individuals perceived their tasks

to require high levels of creativity and had a climate supportive of creativity,

an indicator when measuring engagement (Gilson & Shalley, 2004, Thackray,

2001). A supplementary study found similar results; by providing meaningful

work and an empowering social culture, the creative process of engagement

26
was positively influenced (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Through an effective social

culture and support of cognitive experiences, an environment fosters creativity

by engaging its’ individuals.

When studying engagement it is essential to consider strategies that

organizations and their human resources utilize to ensure employee commitment.

Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage is an extensive

document outlining the trends, levers, influences and barriers of employee

engagement (Lockwood, 2007). A considerable amount of attention is given to

themes and tools for measuring engagement. Additionally, the Gallup Q12 Survey,

the product of an extensive research study, provides organized insight into

twelve methods to effectively measure employee engagement. Although these

methods of testing are not used in the study, common concepts and themes are

recognized and adapted to suit the study. Recurring themes include perceived

support for employee growth opportunities and the availability of support for

creative work. The desire to be essential and the freedom to generate ideas are

compelling determinants for employee fulfillment and retention.

4.6 Disengagement/Distraction and Creativity Associations

It is critical to consider the effects distraction has on an individuals’

creativity. Persons experiencing cognitive strain and disruptive distractions

are likely to be vigilant and suspicious, thus impeding creativity and intuition

(Kahneman, 2011). Earlier studies have documented environmental stress-

inducing distractions of uncontrollable physical stimuli and events such as noise

or prolonged exposure to crowded environments (Cohen, Evans, Stokols, & Krantz

27
1986; Glass & Singer 1972, Sherrod 1974). Environmental distractions directly

affects an individuals perceived support for creativity and must be considered

when trialling an environment. These factors can restrict experiences of creativity

by interfering with concentration and heightening feelings of unpredictability,

thereby creating a notion of an impotent environment.

By analyzing these core concepts, relationships can be made between

perceived support for creativity, employee engagement and levels of

environmental distraction. Associations between these concepts and certain

environmental characteristics can suggest improvements for future creative

facilitation and recommendations for future study.

28
5.0 Research Methodology

Research design, objectives, study sample and setting, and procedures are

described in this chapter. The measurement instruments are reviewed. Finally,

the procedures regarding the ethical conduct of the study, data management,

and analysis are outlined.

5.1 Research Design Overview

A descriptive mixed methods study was conducted. The study explored

creativity using an ethnographic scan, participant surveys and focus groups

methods. The study settings included four cases: three creative organizations

(i.e., Google/YouTube, Idea Couture, and Bento Miso) and one reference

organization, the Digital Futures program at OCAD. The participants included

employees of the creative organizations and students at OCAD.

The objectives of the study were to determine the affects of creative

office design on the users within the space. What is specifically explored is how

the environment fosters creativity, engages the inhabitants, and distracts from

creative output.

In order to understand how to measure these study objectives, one must

first analyze pre-existing studies and critique their methods. In accordance with

this research two previous studies are investigated and deconstructed, with

attention to the methods utilized when interpreting the findings. Because the

29
present study used both quantitative and qualitative methods, two high-qulaity

studies depicting each method will be examined.

Quantitative Resreach Study

In the research study, Qualities of Work Environments That Promote Perceived

Support for Creativity, researchers questioned the physical and social elements
which impacted the support for creativity in the workplace (Stokols, Clitheroe,

& Zmuidzinas, 2002). What is particularly intriguing about this research is the

focus on the relationship between the physical environment and the social culture

within a workplace, which was not evident in previous workplace studies. This

relationship is examined and two hypotheses emerge; 1) that the physical and

social features of work environments influence employees’ job satisfaction and

well-being, and 2) environmental distractions and poor social climate at work

can restrict employees’ experiences of creativity. The study findings supported

the hypotheses to be true, indicating that both recorded levels of environmental

distraction and self-reports of social climate are significantly linked to employees’

perceptions of support for creativity at work.

The study involved ninety-seven participants who completed

questionnaires assessing employees’ perceptions of support for creativity, job

satisfaction, personal stress and their ratings of physical and social features of the

workplace. A group of participants within an office which underwent extensive

renovations and relocations were compared to the remaining participants thaa

experienced neither in their workplaces. The researchers organized the data,

utilizing quantitative methods and advanced statistics, conveying information

30
through a series of tables. These tables analyzed the relevance of the questions,

the major predictors and outcome variables. From these tables came emerging

themes, with regards to the hypotheses. Methods used in this study have proven

to be useful and adaptable for drawing themes, when conducting workplace

research. These methods are modified and applied to suit this designed study,

through the design of the survey.

Qualitative Research Study

In the second study, Open Space = Open Minds? The Ambiguities of Pro-

creative Office Design, delved into the notion of fostering spontaneity, fun and

creativity through office design. What is unique about this study is that the

researchers suggest that creative office environments “may actually undermine

the kind of creativity that it is intended to foster, producing unforeseen forms

of employee creativity that normalize rather than disrupt” (Thanem, Värlander

& Cummings, 2011). This investigation brought to light numerous assumptions

surrounding workplace design and how they came into existence. The findings
indicated that their hypothesis was accurate; that open-plan environments

can foster diverse types of creativity, other than what is intended. Instead, the

researchers suggest incorporating a combination of spaces that offer differing

values to employees.

Unlike the previous study, this research paper utilizes qualitative methods

to uncover participant narratives regarding this new spirit of workplace design.

Using two offices with differing environments as case studies the researchers

conduct employee interviews, and an ethnographic scan, using photographs as

31
documentation. The outcomes of the two case studies provide both similar and

differing results creating contrast for comparison and perspective. This study

concludes with a detailed discussion of understanding creative office design and

organizational politics. These methods proved to be effective in attaining themes

from participant narratives. This can be adapted to suit this study, through the

design of the focus group discussion.

These two studies provide essential methodology knowledge when

assessing the results of an experiment. By building upon and adapting these

methods used in both studies, an inclusive framework is developed for organizing

and attaining results [Figure1]. The methods from the previous two papers can

be adjusted to suit this study, incorporating methods for an ethnographic scan, a

quantitative questionnaire and qualitative focus groups.

5.2 Contextual Search and Review

Prior to the execution of the study, an extensive systematic review was

conducted. This review provided a broad understanding and an indication of

what is current in the field of workplace innovation. Literature, video, personal

interviews, keynote speakers, and newspaper articles provided a wealth of

knowledge regarding the current position of this field. From this review, trends

were discovered, and knowledge gaps were brought to light.

32
5.3 Ethnographic & Environmental Study

An ethnographic scan of the environments was conducted. This scan

consisted of the social culture and the physical environment. This provided

foundational knowledge of the interior elements within the workplace that

were designed to foster creativity. The ethnographic scan took place at three

creative organizations (Google, Bento Miso & Idea Couture) and the reference

environment (OCAD University Digital Futures learning spaces). Photographic

documentation was recorded to supplement the gathered information. In depth

details of this field scan is further examined in 6.0 Space Studies.

5.4 Participant Survey

The participant survey provided additional background information

on the inner workings of the office culture. For convenience and coherence

purposes, the survey was designed and completed using an online platform, with

three topics of focus; employee levels of creativity (60%), engagement (20%),

and distraction (20%). The survey was developed by the principle investigator,
Mariel Vandeloo, based on findings from the contextual review. The survey used

a combination of short-answer questions and five-point Likert Scales. The study

measures have been reviewed (prior to execution) by four creative professionals

to elicit feedback on content and feasibility (for example, simplicity of language,

ease of reading, and time allowed to complete) prior to the data collection. Based

on their recommendations, changes were implemented to improve the format

and readability, and the content and wording of measures developed by the

investigators. The survey was designed to take no longer than ten minutes to

33
complete. The survey was taken by ten participants at each of the three business

organizations and the reference group (forty participants in total). Please see

Appendix A: Survey Guide.

5.5 Focus Group Discussions

The four focus groups require the participation of six individuals at each
(twenty-four participants). Typically in creative team-oriented projects, the

number of members ranges from five to twelve, and the number of six participants

is frequent. At Amazon, Jeff Bezos “came up with the notion of the ‘two-pizza

team’: If you can’t feed a team with two pizzas, it’s too large. That limits a task

force to five to seven people, depending on their appetites” (Deutschman, 2004).

At Google the team sizes remain small and self-directed, ranging from three to

six people. Please see Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide for details

outlining the focus group approach.

These participants will have previously completed the survey portion

of the study. These focus groups were informal and had questions regarding

levels of creativity, engagement, and distraction. Questions included “What

creative outlets do you use to complete these tasks? How do these outlets assist

in fostering creativity? Do you feel your workplace environment is conducive

to completing creative tasks?” The purpose of the focus group was to provide

narratives to explain and build on the results found in the surveys. Each session

was be audio recorded with then transcribed. Each focus group discussion took

no longer than half of an hour.

34
 All data from focus groups and surveys were used in the analysis. Raw

data generated from the focus groups and surveys were organized into codes

based on phrases that appeared systematically or repetitively transcripts. The

codes were then grouped into themes based on similar characteristics and

relationships among the themes determined. Descriptive statistics were used to

summarize the quantitative data. Data will be kept for the duration of the Masters

program. Upon graduation (June 2014) data will be disposed of.

5.6 Ethics & Research Procedures

The research proposal was approved by te Research Ethics Board at OCAD

University [2014-07]. Participant risks and confidentiality were maintained in

accordance with privacy and ethics board requirements. Confidentiality was

maintained with having no identifiers and ensuring individual responses were not

shared with employers or OCAD, unless otherwise indicated byt the participants.

Because this study involves participant responses with regards to their

places of work, certain risks are viable. These risks and options have been

explained to the participants and include privacy of their opinions of their

workplace. In this case, they may feel some discomfort answering some of the

questions. Participants have been notified that they are allowed to leave questions

unanswered and forfeit the study at any time.

35
6.0 Space Studies

The locations of this study involved four creative spaces; one reference

group in the Digital Futures learning spaces at OCAD University and three

corporate offices (Google/YouTube, Bento Miso, and Idea Couture).

6.1 OCAD University Digital Futures Studio Space

6.1.1 Participants

The reference group included both first and second year students in

the Digital Futures Initiative (DFI) pursuing either a Master of Design (MDes),

Master of Fine Arts (MFA), or a Master of Arts (MA) at the Ontario College of

Art and Design (OCAD) University. Ten students participated in interviews, while

twenty-two students participated in surveys, offering their insights on the DFI

learning spaces.

6.1.1 Study Setting

The reference group at OCAD University was chosen to provide a

comparison between itself and the creative offices. These learning spaces are

unique as the environment was not originally designed for creative output however

the individuals working within the space are expected to produce imaginative

work. Students addressed that the lack of attention towards the design of the

environment was causing some creative production issues. Students were then

involved with a small-scale redesign of the space with consideration of budget,

36
time and space amongst other factors. “A bunch of people sat together, like

an architect and an industrial designer and started to revamp it,” one student

recalled. As with any institution, a variety of limitations shape the resulting

space. Funding, electrical configurations and diversity of opinions were of

concern leading to various challenges. One student who oversaw this redesign

commented “we had a lot of conflicting desires coming into play... the challenge

was just getting consensus with people and providing what everyone needed,
which is very diverse.” Several floor plans were designed and revised to fabricate

the current layout [Figure 2 ].

Figure 2: Ceiling and Floor plans of the redesigned student learning space.

6.1.3 Results

The intention of the redesigned working area was to encompass a delicate

balance of collaboration and individual ownership of the space. Most students

agreed that the area was convenient, supported collaborative work and housed

ample tools and equipment to facilitate creative output.

37
 Figure 3: Collaborative OCAD DFI learning space.

Students found the space to be opportune; “it’s central, it’s right where

we go to school so it’s convenient” due to the central downtown location in the

DFI Graduate Studies building. Students have classes and meeting in the same

building, so this studio space is easily accessible.

The space is open with plenty of seating options and areas to congregate
and brainstorm [Figure 3]. On collaboration, one student commented, “I come

here because by nature I like to do a lot of things collaboratively even if it’s an

individual project ... I get unexpected learning opportunities by coming here

and I learn new things.” The space allowed for unexpected co-worker run-ins

and conversations. When participating in group work, one student stated, “we

usually sit at tables because they’re round or mostly round and so it’s conducive

to conversation.” However this support for conversation can deter creative work

38
by producing high levels of noise and distraction.

Perhaps the most prevalent issue that existed in the space was the level

of noise. “I don’t spend much time here at all because I find it too noisy and too

distracting...So I don’t use this space at all except for group projects.... People

come up and ask me stuff and I just prefer to focus when I’m working.” Because

the space encourages collaborative work, there are often many conversations
producing high levels of noise in a contained environment. “It worked well for

that, for creative problem solving, it’s just not great for me when I’m trying to

focus on a task and get something done.” Heather Simmons suggested a solution

to this; a web-based noise monitor that could be reviewed before leaving to work

in the space:

If I knew for example that it was really quiet in here (the studio space)

and I wanted to have a conversation with like one other person and

I could check that at my house up north then I would actually come

down here. But if there’s a risk that it’s going to be super noisy or

whatnot I’d just say well let’s just meet somewhere else. Let’s meet at a
quiet coffee shop because it’s probably quieter. (2014)

There were many conversations about noise as a distraction however other

types of disruptions were cited. Due to lack of space and the number of students

using the space clutter started to build up [Figure 4]. One student commented

on the various objects around the room and how these act as distractions, “you

start thinking well this looks awesome, I’ll try one of those or we should tinker

with that.” This reflects on the issue of deficient space.

39
 Figure 4: An image showing clutter which was found to be distracting for some students.

A recurring concern was that there was simply not enough space for the

number of students, “you know space is always an issue in that we don’t have

enough of it.” (Simmons, 2014). Another student stated, “We’re just too many
people with too many different needs. Right? To consolidate in one small space.”

Unfortunately, this is a limitation that is problematic and challenging to work

around. One student provided thoughts for a better space, if these limitations did

not exist:

Another way I would go which was really helpful in my undergrad

actually was our library space. So the large library space was quiet

space. Everyone sat in the same area and it was quiet and they

did their own individual work. But then you’d have individual study

rooms where the groups would go and work. So you wouldn’t have the

40
 competing noise of the different groups trying to talk over

each other. And each of the rooms had its own smart board

and stuff that they could pull up. (2014)

The space provided ample tools and equipment to facilitate creative work.

These tools included white-boards, circular tables, lockers, arduino circuitry,

printers and access to a small kitchen. Lockers are provided to students to store
projects and materials offering convenient safekeeping [Figure 5]. A student who

Figure 5: Rows of lockers are provided for students to use.

used these lockers and appreciates the availability states, “the storage spaces are

especially useful at the beginning of the semester when we have a lot of arduino

projects, a lot of circuitry and a lot of wires everywhere.” Another feature of the

space is the micro-kitchen that is provided [Figure 6]. One student commented,

“I think a lot of people use the kitchens. It’s a nice hub in-between classes and

41
 Figure 6: An image of the small kitchen area in the space.

breaks. A lot of people go in there and make food and tea and stuff.” The kitchen

includes a microwave, sink, fridge and coffee machine. Heather Simmons,

candidate in the Digital Futures Masters program, commented on some of the

additional tools provided:

There’s great tools here in the sense that there’s soldering irons which
we need, there’s all sorts of print formats, there’s hook-up wire and

widgets that we need to create or projects... So you can actually

get your hands dirty and actually work on projects that we create

for class. It’s not bad in terms of tools there just needs to be more

of them and probably could be replaced more frequently. (2014)

The consensus on the provided tools is that they are generally high quality,

however there is not enough to accommodate all of the students and they could

42
be updated to facilitate improved learning [Figure 7]. “I wish that we had more

equipment here, like we only have a few arduinos here available for rental and

for booking out,” one student stated. Additionally, there is concern about the

management of the tools and equipment. There is uncertainty with whom to

speak to about the organization of the various tools. A student expressed her

concern, “I think also in terms of the equipment that’s provided if they’re going

to provide us with free printers, scanners and all those things, it has to be clearly

indicated who’s responsible for taking care of that equipment and maintaining it

so if we run out of toner we don’t run out of printers.”

Figure 7: Results from the survey indicating that most students felt that materials and equipment
were only slightly available.

The result is a vibrant space where collaborative work is encouraged

[Figure 8], although nonetheless some concerns exist amongst users. One

student commented, “It improved vastly compared to what it was before... but I

43
 Figure 8: Collaborative spaces for students to interact.

don’t think it addressed the core of the issue which is the (problem) between

individual quiet work and the group work in the space, and that would require

structural changes,” a limitation beyond the control of the students. Although

the space was suitable in a sense that it was convenient, supported collaborative
work and housed ample tools and equipment, there were nevertheless concerns

with regards to noise, space, clutter and management. Results showed that even

after the redesign, the students felt the space was only slightly conducive to

creative output [Figure 9].

Many of the users of the space expressed interest in the betterment of the

space, and were willing to provide feedback and ideas about possible changes

for the future. The conversation about how to further improve this space is a

continuing ongoing effort.

44
Figure 9: Survey results showing that most students perceived the environment to be only slightly
conducive to creative work.

6.2 Google Office

6.2.1 Participants

The participants included employees of Google located at the Toronto

location, in the financial district. This specific location is the advertising sales

support center for Canada. The participants included both men and women in

varying positions, at differing levels of standing within the company. The team

of ‘Googlers’ included developers, account managers, marketing specialists,

communications strategists, and support staff. The participation of the Facilities

Manager, Andrea Janus was particularly active, as she is heavily involved in the

design of the space and the social culture.

45
6.2.2 Study Setting

Located centrally in downtown Toronto, this office stretches over five

floors with 89,000 square feet. The space is a creative playground, which

accommodates rooftop mini-putt, music rooms [Figure 10], massage rooms, free

lunches, and ping pong, all which utilize environmentally responsible materials.

Figure 10: A drum set in the music room where people can take a break from their work.

Embracing Canadian themes, the space is designed to reflect the Toronto

community and to mirror the diversity of the city. Artwork from Canadian artists

and designers are hung on the walls [Figure 11] and meeting rooms are named

after locations around the city selected by staff, such as the Stompin’ Tom

Connors’ room.

46
Figure 11: A collaborative art piece, where a local artist drew a stencil of the Toronto skyline, and
visitors of the office coloured in the blanks.

Meeting rooms are themed and have interesting and abstract features, to

inspire and captivate. For example, if employees need to relax or have a casual
meeting, they can choose to utilize the tent room [Figure 12] or the room which

accommodates a pool table [Figure 13]. Traditional meeting rooms do not exist

within these walls [Figure 14]. A favourite amongst employees is the hidden

room; a room that can only be accessed through a bookcase, by selecting a

certain book. Behind the swinging book case is a cozy and comfortable room,

perfect for a private meeting.

Food is available to bring people together through the use of one

large cafeteria [Figure 15], where lunch is provided each day, and through

47
Figure 12: A unique space to have a meeting, or relax.

Figure 13: A meeting room with a pool table.

Figure 14: A non-traditional meeting room with an outdoor theme.

48
 Figure 15: Seating in the cafeteria.

additional micro-kitchens on each floor [Figure 16]. This is where employees can

gather to meet or enjoy complimentary breakfasts, lunches, and snacks. There is

a focus on sustainability and health, thus most food offered is healthy, although

there are some exceptions of candy and other treats. The food areas are designed

to foster conversation and casual run-ins with individuals, by providing large

communal tables.

The company values environmental responsibility and therefore practices

regenerative design; the process of restoring or renewing sources of energy and

materials and creating sustainable systems. The building and office space are

working towards a LEED Gold certification. Many materials and furnishings are

recycled matter, for example the fishing-wire carpet, reclaimed wood walls, and

49
Figure 16: A micro-kitchen providing healthy snacks and communal seating.

recycled car lights. Additionally, 100 per cent of the power generating the office

is from clean, green sources.

6.2.3. Results

The survey revealed that although the environment is designed to inspire

and foster creativity, with clever themes and unusual decor, the employees work

a maximum of sixteen hours per week on creative tasks, with many reports

of working less than nine. Despite not working many hours on creative tasks,

the employees agreed that the environment was conducive to creative output,

through availability of inspirational outlets, accessibility of tools and materials,

and the opportunities to learn and grow.

50
 It was discovered that many creative outlets exist throughout the

environment, such as areas for collaboration, quiet spaces for phone calls, and

spaces for ideation and brainstorming. One Googler offered their opinion on the

availability of creative outlets and how these outlets aid in the completion of

creative tasks:

This place has so many outlets that allow you to generate great ideas.

It can be as simple as sitting with the designers and watching a video

being edited, or playing arcade games in the lounge, or just picking up a

Rubik’s cube on the table next to you while you have a chat with your

colleague. It’s impossible to pinpoint the exact catalyst because

doing these things comes as second nature. (2014)

The office is designed in a way to spark accidental run-ins and

conversations with other colleagues, with available spaces to accommodate such

activities. One employee commented on the usefulness of these encounters,

“there are many creative spaces where we can go to collaborate and brain storm.

These casual collision spaces allow me to learn from my colleagues outside of a

meeting room.” Another employee stated that “discussions with very intelligent

people” is the most useful creative outlet.

What is interesting about the physical space, is that ‘Googlers’ were

heavily involved in the design process, and encouraged to share their ideas on

what they would like to see in the environment. The result is a space designed

based on ideas from hundreds of staff members, from small personal touches

to conveying significant Canadian influences. This inclusion creates a sense of

togetherness and engagement in the social culture.

51
 All participants reported that this environment provided excellent

opportunities to learn and grow, which is associated with high levels of employee

engagement (Thackray, 2001). This was attributed to abundant mentoring,

leadership, extracurricular opportunities, and constantly changing projects and

teams. These qualities within the culture were shown to engage employees. One

Googler provided opinions on these qualities:

Even though you might have a specific role (ie. designer) you are likely

also part of a multidisciplinary team. Being constantly exposed to

(and working on projects with) people from different professional

backgrounds allows you to grow and develop a unique skill set. (2014)

Another opportunity to learn and grow as an individual at Google, is

to engage in their ‘Hack Days.’ Hack Days are an event in which individuals

throughout the company collaborate intensively on a project, usually involving

software/hardware, but can also be something completely different. These

projects are completed over the span of two days, which explains the intense
collaboration. The goal is to create something usable and useful for the company.

One participant stated “Hack Days are a great opportunity to grow outside

of your normal day to day role.” Working with individuals that one might not

normally work with provides opportunities to learn from each other, promoting

engagement as a whole.

With an abstract and inspiring environment, distractions are sure to

ensue. The most reported distraction is noise and the “limited quiet areas, such as

the phone booths and break out rooms” where high noise levels can be avoided.

52
Other distractions include social conversations, and phones calls. Despite having

accessible games and a focus on play, the gaming consoles were not found to be

a distraction but rather a refreshment:

It’s not really a distraction for me (games). I can step away from my

desk, do something different (like play ping pong with my colleague) and

then get back to work refreshed. So it’s not really a distraction in the end.

(2014)

Overall, the distractions at Google are not uncommon, and most are

viewed in a positive light. Through availability of creative outlets, availability of

tools and materials, and opportunities to learn and grow, creativity is fostered

within the culture within Google, Toronto.

6.3 Bento Miso Collaboration Space

6.3.1 Participants

Bento Miso differs from the other case studies as it does not contain

people working together as an organization but rather houses individuals on

a membership basis, working on personal projects. These individuals include

entrepreneurs, game makers, designers, developers, artists, students, and other

creative individuals. Currently there are over 160 members who utilize the space.

The study included the participation of ten individuals who participated in the

survey and two individuals who were interviewed. All participants are from

differing backgrounds, working on various projects.

53
6.3.2 Study Setting

Bento Miso provides a creative space, where members can work and play

as well as host events and meetings [Figure 17]. Many aspects of Bento Miso

have a focus on play and gaming, such as the events that are hosted there. A

Figure 17: A collaborative space at Bento Miso.

membership includes access to the private member site and to the space. The

work environment is mainly open concept with several smaller meeting rooms,

equipped with electrical outlets, wi-fi, coffee, and modern, ergonomic furniture

54
[Figure 18]. The entire space encompasses two floors, with the upstairs utilized for

an administrative office and for event space. Henry Faber, business director and

co-founder of Bento Miso states “Bento Miso is the collaborative workspace we

created to represent the physical extension of our values” (2013). He continues,

“basically there’s one thing I personally want to contribute to, is to give a lot of

these independent game developers and small studios that are looking to make

a go of it to gain sustainability and thrive. I want to be able to give those tools so

that we can keep getting these amazing games” (Faber, 2013).

Figure 18: Tools used for idea generation.

55
6.3.3 Results

After review of the survey and discussion with members, it is clear that

the users enjoy the space and find it conducive to creative exploration. They also

agree that many tools and materials are available to support this discovery. As is

with most creative environments, social distractions are present.

Yifat Shaik, game designer, illustrator, and graphic designer offers her

opinion on the space:

There’s one big open space with desks and there’s a smaller space with

no desks…(which are used) usually if there’s a project that has physical

components or if you want to sit in quiet. It’s a good co-working

space. (2014)

Shaik went on to further explain that the environment is very professional.

Everyone who uses the space is passionate about their endeavor, so it is generally

a “hard-working crowd” (Shaik, 2014).

The social culture is particularly remarkable at Bento Miso. One member

reflects on personal betterment from engaging socially, “It is no exaggeration to

say that working at my particular co-working space has influenced my company,

myself and my world views in many positive direct ways by interacting with

the other members and learning more about the perspectives of a diverse set

of people who happen to share some interests or a need for warmth, power

and unlimited Internet.” The survey supports this positive feedback in that the

users believe the environment provides opportunities to learn and grow. The

56
social culture is “non-judgemental, with no external pressures.” It is a common

practice at Bento Miso for after-work activities and events to occur, which also

provides opportunities to learn and discover for those who attend [Figure 19].

The “rotating cast of coworkers, and opportunities to show personal work” adds

to the already inspiring environment.

Figure 19: An event which is hosted at the adaptable space.

When asked about available tools and materials, one member recalled

a particularly memorable experience with the availability of Lego®, ”At my

work space I had one of the other members film me over a four hour period as

I assembled a Lego puzzle box of my own design that I then used to propose to

my fiancée.” Additional tools utilized consist of writable cling film, white-board

walls, boxes, and craft supplies. Overall, study results show that most individuals

found creative outlets, such as these described, to be extremely available and

valuable.

57
 As found with the previous creative space studies, some distractions are

present. It was discovered that although social distractions exist, this disruption

is usually welcomed. The individuals use these social distractions to revitalize or

decompress. One member recounts “It’s open concept so occasionally I get too

chatty with other people but since I consistently work at over 125% capacity a few

breaks is not a bad thing.” Another member agrees about the “social coworkers,
although the break is usually welcome.” Where other creative workplaces view

these social occurrences as impediments, at Bento Miso it is viewed as a time to

recover, and engage in a social break from work.

Findings show that the environment at Bento Miso is perceived to be

conducive to creative tasks and that the required tools and materials are readily

available. Social distractions transpire, however these are not viewed as barriers

but rather as methods to recharge and refresh.

6.4 The Office of Idea Couture

6.4.1 Participants

The study participants included individuals employed at Idea Couture in

the Toronto location [Figure 20]. Participants included both men and women

in varying positions, and at differing levels of standing within the company.

The diverse and talented team consisted of economists, anthropologists,

sociologists, brand strategists, human factors specialists, experience architects

and industrial, interactive, and graphic designers. The participation of the Senior

58
Innovation Strategist, Maryam Nabavi was particularly active in this study, as she

is profoundly involved in the ecology of the culture.

Figure 20: The entrance to the Idea Couture Toronto location.

6.4.2 Study Setting

Idea Couture is an award-winning global strategic innovation and

experience design firm. The company holds presence in Toronto, San Francisco,

Shanghai, London, Mexico City and Dubai. “Idea Couture partners with

organizations to uncover innovative ideas that sustainably grow market share

and develop competitive advantage through powerful customer experiences”

(Idea Couture, 2014).

59
 The two floors on the top of the building which include a rooftop patio, are

home to the Idea Couture inhabitants which include two comical French bulldogs

who entertain visitors. The building incorporates modern furnishings in an old

loft-style heritage building with exposed brick and a winding staircase. The space

is a reflection of the CEO’s personal taste and the outcome of personal touches of

the individuals who inhabit the area. The office is made up of a series of meeting

rooms, micro-kitchens, decompression spaces, and open-concept workspaces.

As the open-concept workplace is explored, creative installations are discovered,

such as the hanging umbrellas [Figure 21] and the life-size horse lamp [Figure22].

Figure 21: White umbrellas hang from the ceiling.

Figure 22: The reception area of Idea Couture.

60
 Work stations are modular and flexible with individuals who add their

own personal touches. The occupants have the option of standing or sitting while

working, by the use of flexible boxed shelving [Figure 23]. The atmosphere is

playful yet potent, exuding a commited work ethic.

Figure 23: The flexible work environment at Idea Couture.

The two kitchen areas are designed for casual encounters, where food

supplies are provided. There are large communal tables for everyone to enjoy

their food while conversing [Figure 24].

Decompression spaces which host video games, ping pong, and lounge

areas are designed for employees to step back from projects, and restore

61
Figure 24: The kitchen and communal eating area.

Figure 25: A place to have a meeting over tea.

62
themselves [Figure 25].

There are also secluded rooms which serve various purposes. Rooms

designed for exercise, brainstorming, prototyping, meetings, and play. These

rooms are not typical meeting rooms, but rather rooms to stimulate curiosity,

exploration, and amusement.

6.4.3 Results

The environment encourages creative output through providing ample

tools and materials. For instance, a room is dedicated to prototyping projects

[Figure 26] where all the necessary tools can be found, such as a life-size

mannequin, 3D printer, and circuitry boards. The survey indicated that many

outlets are provided and utilized, such as inspirational cards, Lego®, and other

visual stimuli to encourage personal creativity [Figure 27].

At Idea Couture, making non-detrimental mistakes is encouraged, as

it is considered to be a part of the creative design process. It is argued that

allowing the emergence of an unselfconscious design process, produces intrinsic

creativity. This particular process includes exploration and the freedom to make

errors. Survey results support this openness, and showed that making minimal

errors was only slightly stressful to employees, which indicates that making

occasional mistakes is acceptable. According to Gary Davis, psychology expert,

“innovation necessarily requires mistakes, and even failing, as Thomas Edison did

quite regularly” (1990). To further support this, IBM founder Thomas J. Watson

was once quoted, “The way to succeed is to double your failure rate”(1982).

63
Figure 26: A room with tools and equipment for prototyping.

Figure 27: Survey results indicate the availability of creative outlets.

Maryam Nabavi explains the views on making mistakes and ‘failing fast’:

We want to fail fast because failure is definitely part of the process and

no matter how much you plan you can’t expect everything to go

according to the plan, but you try to make the mistakes … as many

64
 mistakes as possible in the front (beginning) to avoid repeating

the same mistakes and also to make better mistakes because there is a

difference between a good mistake and a bad mistake. And it’s better to

get the stupid mistakes out of the way. (2014)

By ‘failing fast’ and getting the ‘stupid mistakes out of the way’ designers

and strategists are able to quickly correct these mistakes, and learn from them,
resulting in a higher quality end product. Nabavi provides an example of a non-

detrimental mistake, “for instance if you thought that you were designing that

product for the early adopters, generation X and halfway through you realize that

you’ve made the wrong assumption, and you’re able to correct that mistake. I

would say that’s an acceptable one” (2014). The survey results further supported

this notion. It was discovered that mistakes were not detrimental at all or were

only slightly detrimental to creative motivation [Figure 28].

As with any creative workplace, distractions exist. The environment is

very collaborative, and socially designed to spark conversations. “If I have to

write something and I don’t want to talk to anyone I just have to put my head

down and write. Once in a while you have the flexibility to work from home and

sometimes I do that” (Nabavi, 2014). Music, conversations and dogs can prove

to be distracting, which it why the office has incorporated private ‘project rooms’

where individuals can close the doors. “We realized that we don’t have enough

of them which is why we’re thinking about reconfiguring the office and probably

adding more office rooms or group project rooms” (Nabavi, 2014).

Positive outcomes did ensue from frequent social interactions, through

65
Figure 28: The survey results showing that mistakes were not detrimental or were only slightly
detremental to creative motivation.

encouraging a deeper level of thinking, and by providing divergent perspectives on

various challenges. Maryam describes the constructive nature of interacting with

her team, “It helped me to think more creatively, and question things, and look at

things from different perspectives and to be honest a lot of it is not necessarily

driven by the space it’s because of the people that I work with and the different

perspectives that they bring” (2014).

A particularly unique factor affecting creativity that is present at Idea

Couture is how internal growth is approached. When a creative company is a

new start-up, the environment is often friendly, intimate, and communal. As a

company grows, this atmosphere is difficult to sustain. Maryam comments on

the growth of the company:

We had to introduce some level of hierarchy, some level of structure.

For instance we never would log our hours. Now we have this system

to log your hours, not to track when people come in or leave but just to

66
 know who’s working on what and to be able to manage the resources.

So things change. The company culture is like a living person

because it grows, it changes the mood, it does all of those crazy things.

Some people accept it and some people don’t and that becomes the

reason that they leave. We’ve had situations where because it

felt like a start-up four years ago and now it feels like a company...

And I still feel that we’re doing a decent job in keeping that but there are
compromises that we have to make when the company grows in size.

(2014)

The social culture is an affecting aspect in employee engagement and

retention at Idea Couture. How the company growth affects the social culture

is another challenge to consider. At Idea Couture the atmosphere remains

relaxed, fun, and expressive.

Employee involvement is encouraged in many aspects of the workplace,

including the internally-developed, quarterly magazine; M/I/S/C/ [Figure

29]. It is a design, thinking and innovation magazine which reflects the blurred

boundaries of business, technology, and design, which Idea Couture as a

company is centrally involved with. Anything but miscellaneous, M/I/S/C/

stands for movement, intuition, structure, and complexity. Idris Mootee, CEO

of Idea Couture and Editor-in-Chief of M/I/S/C/ involves the employees of

Idea Couture in the writing and production of the magazine, creating a sense of

community through the construction of a publication.

67


Figure 29: A table displays the Idea Couture’s quarterly magazine.

Findings from personal interviews and survey results show that the workplace

is conducive to creative work, through the accessibility of tools and materials,

encouraged mistakes, and facilitation of both collaboration and secluded private

work spaces. However, as with many creative workplaces, distractions and

challenges do exist.

In summary, the workplace at Idea Couture is shown to be conducive

to creative work, through the accessibility of tools and materials, encouraged

mistakes, the facilitation of both collaboration and secluded private work spaces,

and through a sense of community. Despite this as with many workplaces,

distractions and challenges do exist in conjunction with the creative process.

68
7.0 Discussion

Through analysis of the results one can contrive a more comprehensive

inclusive and innovative office culture, which in turn generates exemplary ideas,

systems and products. Harnessing the roots of innovation in the workplace,

leads to a significant transformation, thus creating an all-encompassing work

environment, increasing employee creativity, generating engagement and

decreasing levels of distraction.

7.1 Emerging Themes from Quantitative Results and Participant Narratives

Themes have emerged from the surveys and interviews, some showing

similarities while others are distinctively unique. The following table illustrates a

cross analysis of emerging themes from the reference group and the three office

workplaces studied in the research project [Table 1].

Themes OCAD Google Bento Miso Idea Couture

Collaboration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Food to Encourage Encounters ✓ ✓
Play to Encourage Curiosity ✓ ✓ ✓
Available Tools & Equipment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Creative Outlets for Ideation ✓ ✓
Encouraged Mistakes/Failure ✓
Opportunities to Learn and Grow ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Involvement as a Collective ✓ ✓ ✓
Sense of Community ✓ ✓
Social Distractions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Physical Distractions (Clutter) ✓
Overall Health & Wellbeing ✓
Table 1: Recurring themes across study sites.

69
 Collaboration was highly valued across all of the workplaces encountered

in this research project. Collaboration occurred through facilitation of open

space, adequate seating, and accessibility, collaboration occurs. The findings

with this study are consistent with previous research that reported that work

spaces that include open-concept design are flexible and can accommodate

greater numbers of employees in smaller spaces, which facilitates social

interaction and communication (Zahn, 1991). These accommodations have been

shown to improve job satisfaction, employee morale, information exchange and

productivity, which are directly associated with how an individual experiences

creativity.

The provision of food was customarily applied to prompt encounters and

encourage unexpected conversations. The two sites which utilized this method

provided micro-kitchens offering food, drinks and communal seating to encourage

this behaviour. What was once considered inefficient and unproductive personal

chatter is now accepted as informal interactions, which have the potential to

create associations and inspire creative work. At Pixar, core values incorporate
empowering employees through a healthy social culture and a communicative

environment (Catmull, 2008). President of Walt Disney Animation Studios and

Pixar Animation Studios further explains, “ most buildings are designed for some

functional purpose, but ours is structured to maximize inadvertent encounters...

it’s hard to describe just how valuable the resulting chance encounters are”

(Catmull, 2008).

Similar to how food is used as a tool to spark discussions, games are used to

encourage play, and trigger curiosity. Theoretically, play fosters the development

70
of cognitive processes, that are important in creative ideation. In the study, Play

and Creativity: Developmental Issues, it was found that play has facilitates insight

ability and divergent thinking (Russ, 2010). This type of divergent thinking has

been recognized to foster cerative thought processes. Through the stimulation of

thinking processes, creativity and ideation is enhanced.

In addition to the availability of games, indispensable tools and materials

are essential to accommodate creative work. Specifically in these types of

workplaces, the required resources must be accessible, in order to support

the foundation of inspired behaviour. These tools encompass basic supportive

properties, including comfortable restful furniture, inclusive software, appropriate

lighting, suitable technological devices and diverse ideation tools. Devices that

support seamless communication and collaboration reduce barriers, allowing

inspirational, imaginative ideas to prosper. Without these fundamental tools

and materials, creative work is considerably more challenging to pursue and

successfully achieve.

Creative outlets are the availability of physical spaces which serve a clear,

undeniable creative goal. For example, a games room where individuals can

decompress and utilize play, fosters imaginative thoughts and notions. Utilizing

these outlets is an exceptional means to eliminate these creative blocks. Many

resourceful outlets discussed by participants in this study are recognized methods

for overcoming and conquering such obstacles. For example, a conscious change

of habits, such as altering one’s environment, taking time for reading or turning

to others for ideas or inspiration, are methods to overcome blocks (Tharp,

2006). Creative outlets afford this behaviour and “guide the individual to make

71
connections, create thematic unification, and be inspired in his/her own creative

work“ (Ray, 2010).

There are numerous studies on the importance of encouraged failures as

a part of creative processes. Paul Schoemaker, author of Brilliant Mistakes: Finding

Success on the Far Side of Failure states that utilizing mistakes to be creative will

“reveal new information or challenge our assumptions.” At Pixar “post-mortems”

or blunders, are often explored and embraced as a part of the culture (Catmull,

2008). It is discovered that companies that support mistakes or failure, decrease

the stress of those within the workplace, which encourages the creative process.

“The challenge today is not just retaining talented people, but fully

engaging them, capturing their minds and hearts at each stage of their work

lives” (Lockwood, 2007). Undoubtedly, employee engagement is vitally

important in supporting a healthy workplace culture. By providing meaningful

work, opportunities and an empowering social culture, engagement in individuals

is positively influenced (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). In this study, it was discovered
that it is very challenging to experience creative ideation when an individual

is not intellectually engaged. This study further supports the importance of

engagement, in that all sites provided opportunities to learn and grow. Through

providing these opportunities, employees become motivated and engaged in

their work, having a positive effect on creative output.

One attribute of an engaged collective, is the sense of the local

community. Through community engagement, new sources of inspiration and

social encounters occur. At Google in Toronto, the community was involved in

72
several art projects throughout the office, providing opportunities for employees

to connect creatively with other residents.

It is apparent that distractions and unsettling interruptions are detrimental

to establishing creative work. Findings show that all sites experienced social

distractions. Socially shared encounters are recurrent in artistic environments

and are frequently encouraged, as they foster innovative output, however when
they are unwanted, these conversations are disruptive distractions. Some found

these distractions to be a hindrance, while others welcomed the conversation. It is

possible that individual differences and personality types have a correlation with

the experience of social distractions. The severity of distractions were unique to

each individual, varying in levels of disturbance. Specific environmental prompts

can “frustrate rather than facilitate human relations and make life harder for

some humans” (Cummings, Thanem & Värlander 2011). These unwelcome social

interactions can interrupt creative thoughts leading to undesirable cognitive

strain.

In a similar way, physical distractions such as workplace untidiness and

clutter can deter creative motivation. Organizational psychologist Matthew

Davis reviewed more than one hundred studies regarding office environments.

He discovered that open offices often foster a symbolic sense of organizational

mission making employees feel like they were part of a more laid-back, innovative

enterprise. However, these types of environmental structures were damaging

to the workers’ attention spans, productivity, creative thinking and satisfaction

(Davis, Leach & Clegg 2011). Naturally curious and inquisitive individuals can

be easily distracted by their surroundings. These disruptions may be useful as

73
creative outlets however may have the opposite effect of deterring desirable

ideation, concepts and beliefs. The findings from this research shows that all

sites had social distractions however, only the reference group had physical

distractions. Perhaps it is the lack of management in this environment that

cultivated this clutter.

Many inspiring and efficient workplaces have a multitude of facets and

meaningful goals; collaboration, chance encounters, curiosity, available tools,

creative outlets, employee involvement, encouraged failure, a focus on wellbeing,

a sense of community and attainable opportunities. The optimal workplace for

fostering creative behaviour is an environment where all of these values can be

explored, without interference from each other. “Work is invariably a combination

of individual work, collaboration, coordination, creativity, and other things, all of

which can take a variety of forms, sometimes in just one person in one day” (Craig,

2014). Distractions will at all times exist, however these disruptions may have a

very positive constructive effect on creative productivity if they are encountered

in the appropriate manner. According to the research by CannonDesign, results

show that “the average employee does want fewer distractions, but they also

want 35% more frequent interactions within their teams; they want more energy

and buzz in the workplace than less, but they also want the flexibility to escape

to a quiet place from time to time. What they definitely don’t want is one space

that’s just open or just enclosed” (Craig, 2014). This study showed similar results;

participants indicated that a space where both social collaboration and individual

focus could thrive would be ideal. An area for further exploration is how chance

social encounters are perceived in the workplace; as a part of the creative process,

or as a distraction.

74
 Additional office environment design structures would potentially broaden

the study outcomes and strengthen the analysis. Complimentary replication of

this study should be conducted in further locations among diverse populations to

examine the reproducibility. The participant/office sample size was small and a

larger range would intensify the approach to identifying the correlation between

work surroundings and employee creativity. Consequently, questions remain

regarding the best environment to create, promote and sustain the most talented

designers, leading to the valuable consideration for future research.

7.2 Future Implications in Office Design & Research

This exploratory study aims to contribute to the research field of

workplace innovation and encourage forward thinking with the concept of working

environments, through promoting a more inclusive, inventive future. Through

establishing a need for creativity in the workplace, this research contribution

looks to future adaptation for virtual work environments as well as other fields of
work, outside of creative industries.

It is anticipated that the designed framework may have applications

which can be applied to the virtual world. Although the study of virtual work

environments is outside the scope of this research project, it is known that

creativity is also required in this type of online environment (Fayard & Weeks,

2011). With advancing technologies, sharing capabilities and distance interaction

is becoming increasingly convenient and efficient. Increasingly, physical work

environments are becoming more ‘virtual’. Companies are approaching this

75
workforce as a progressive and competitive strategy, to “embrace and leverage

the benefits of virtual teaming” to thrive in the coming decades (Bullock & Klein,

2011). The natural advancement of this research would be to apply this framework

into designing virtual work environments for creative output, which can balance

cohesively with the physical workplace. Significant virtual challenges exist that

do not exist in the physical environment, which leads to further research and

exploration. Specifically, further examination on employee engagement would be

required. Future researchers and scholars could utilize this designed framework

as a source to apply knowledge to the virtual work environment, with attention to

the affects that this environment has on its users.

In addition to the virtual environment, it is expected that this contribution

extends over a breadth of fields. Henry Porter, English author and journalist,

authentically explains the potential for understanding workplace innovation, not

only in creative companies, but in all aspects of work:

We could be so much more and have lives that were greatly more

fulfilled if we only started to find ways of allowing people to be a

little more creative in whatever they do. I am not talking about

web companies and media agencies, where a creative environment

is a priority, but all those humdrum offices we find ourselves in, where

the power structures, politics, sexism, fear, orthodoxy, imaginary

pressure and bloody stupid rules prevent us from making the most

of what we are, or becoming what we could be. (2013)

Consideration of the designed framework, when designing for workplace

innovation, has the potential to increase the positive mood, the creativity and

76
the wellbeing of the people working within the space. This study is presented

as a means to contribute to the field, in the hopes that it will be of value to

architects, designers, individuals who inhabit workplaces and future researchers.

The aspiration of this work is to improve the quality of creative workplaces, thus

improving the quality of creative work, thus improving the quality of working

lives.

77
 8.0.References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.

Research in Organizational Behaviour.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H. Lazenby, J., Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal.

Amazon.com Inc (2014). Leadership Principles. Retrieved from

http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?
node=239365011

Anderton, F. (1998, December 17). ‘Virtual Officing’ Comes In From the Cold.
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Batey, M. (2012). The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus

to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Manchester,
The University of Manchester.

Bell, A. (2010). Re-imagining the Office: The New Workplace Challenge.

Farnham: Ashgate.

Bell, J. (2007) Game Over! Back to Work, Wallpaper, London.

Bilton, C. and Cummings, S. (2010) Creative Strategy: Reconnecting Business

and Innovation, Wiley, Oxford.

Bullock, C., Klein, J. T. (2011). Virtual Work Environments in the Post-Recession

Era. Unpublished dissertation, Brandman University.

Burkus, D. (2014). The Myths of Creativity. Location: Publisher.

Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar Fosters Creativity. Harvard Business Review.

78
CBC Radio Canada (2014, January 23). Debut: Officeland [Television Broadcast].
CBC-TV.

Cleese, J. (1991). A Lecture on Creativity. Lecture conducted from Video Arts,

London.

Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., Krantz, D.S. (1986). Behaviour, Health and
Environmental Stress. New York, NY: Plenum.

Corus Entertainment. (2014). Vision and Values. Retrieved from

http://www.corusent.com/home/Corporate/AboutCorus/Visionand
Values/tabid/1670/Default.aspx

Craig, D. (January, 2014). It Doesn’t Matter Whether Or Not You Like

Your Open Office. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.
com/3025052/it-doesnt-matter-whether-or-not-you-like-your-open
-office

Davis, G. A. (1999) Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes. In

Encyclopedia of Creativity. Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/
search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=encyclopedia+of+cerativity

Davis, M.C., Leach, D.J. & Clegg, C.W. (2011). The Physical Environment of the
Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 26.

Doorley, S., Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative
collaboration. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Fayard, A-L. & Weeks, J. (2011). Creating workspaces that actually foster
collaboration. Harvard Business Review July-August 2011 pp. 103-110.

Fayard, A., Weeks, J. (May 2007). Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The

Affordances of Informal Interaction. Organization Studies, 28 (5).

79
Gibson, J.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.

Glass, D.C., & Singer, J.E. (1972). Urban Stress. New York: Academic.

Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, texts and affordances, Sociology, 35 (2)

pp.441–456.

Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults.
Bensenville, Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service.

Hofbauer, J. (2000) ‘Bodies in a landscape: on office design and organization’,

in Hassard, J., Holliday, R. and Willmott, H. (Eds.): Body and Organization,
Sage, London, pp.166–191.

Hutchby, I. (May 2001). Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Department of

Human Sciences. 35 (2).

The Importance of Employee Engagement. (2012). [Engaged Employees

Infographic] Dale Carnegie Training. Retreived from http://www.
dalecarnegie.com/employee-engagement/engaged-employees-
infographic

Jaffe, E. (2013, October). Why our Brains Love Curvy Architecture. Co.Design.
Retrieved from: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3020075/why-our-
brains-love-curvy-architecture

Janus, A. (2014, March). Personal Interview.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.

Karakaya, A., Demirkan, H. (2014, April) Collaborative digital environments to

enhance the creativity of designers. Computers in Human Behavior.

80
Kersting, K. (2003). What exactly is creativity? Monitor on Psychology, 34(10),
40.

Kuang, C., (2009, March 23). Evolution of Office Spaces Reflects Changing
Attitudes Toward Work. Wired Magazine, 17(04),. Retrieved from http://
www.wired.com/
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive
Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. SHRM Research Quarterly.

Maher, A., & von Hippel, C. (2005) Individual differences in employee reactions
to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25 (2).

McCoy, J. M. & Evans, G.W. (2002). The Potential Role of the Physical
Environment in Fostering Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 14 (3)
409-426.

McGinn, D., (2013, November 7) Unlocking how design affects behaviour. The
Globe and Mail, pp. L4.

McGuinness, M. (2013) 7 Types of Creative Block (and What to Do About

Them). 99u. Retrieved from http://99u.com/articles/7088/7-types-of-
creative-block-and-what-to-do-about-them#comments

Nabavi, M. (2014, March). Personal Interview.

Porter, H. (2013, December 14). Deadly Conformity is killing our creativity. Let’s
mess about more. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/conformity-killing-creativity-at-work

Ray, J. H. (2010). The Nature of Creativity: An Examination of the Creative

Process. (Unpublished dissertation). California State University,
Sacremento

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C. & Pina e Cunha, M. (2012). Optimism

81
 predicting employees’ creativity:The mediating role of positive affect and
the positivity ratio. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 21(2).

Russ, S.(2003). Play and Creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal

of Educational Research. 47 (3).

Shalley, C., Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social
and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership
Quarterly. 15 (1).

Sherrod, D. R. (1974). Crowding, Perceived Control, and Behavioral Aftereffects.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Shiak, Y. (2014, March). Personal Interview.

Simmons, H. (2014, March). Personal Interview.

Stokols, D., Clitheroe, C., Zmuidzinas, M. (2002). Qualities of Work

Environments That Promote Perceived Support for Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal. 137-147.

Thackray, J. (2001). The Gallup Q12, Survey. Retrieved from the Gallup
Management Journal.

Thanem, T., Värlander, S., Cummings, S. (2011). Open Space = Open Minds?
The Ambiguities of Pro-creative Office Design. Int. J. Work Organization
and Emotion.

Tharp, T. (2006). The Creative Habit: Learn It and Use It for Life. Simon &
Schuster.

Vandeloo, M. (2014) An Exploration of the Effects of Office Design in Creative

Workplaces. Personal Communications [Survey].

82
Kwiatkowski, J., Vartnanain, O., Martindale, C. (1999) Creativity and Speed of
Mental Processing. Empiricle Studies of the Arts. 17(2).

Varvel, T., Adams, S., Pridie, S., and Ruiz Ulloa, B. (2004). Team Effectiveness
and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. J. Manage. Eng.,
20(4), 141–146.

White, H.A., Shah, P. (April 2011). Creative style and achievement in adults with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50 (5).

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods, Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Zahn, G. L. (1991). Face-to-face communication in an office setting: The effects

of position, proximity, and exposure. Communication Research, 18(6),
737–754.

Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M. (February, 2010). Linking Empowering Leadership and
Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment,
Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy of
Management Journal. 53(1).

83
Appendix A: Survey Guide
Date: October 3rd, 2013

Principal Investigator: Faculty Supervisor:

Mariel Vandeloo, Student Tom Barker
OCAD University Director, Graduate Program in Digital Futures
613-804-0096 OCAD University
[email protected] [email protected]
416-977-6000, Ext. 2056

The Survey Questionnaire has 10 questions, which are completed according to a

5-point Likert scale, as well as short answer component. 60% of the questions
are focused on the primary outcome; fostering creativity. 20% of the questions
focus on the topic of employee engagement, and the remaining 20% of the
questions focus on levels of distraction. The online questionnaire platform used
will be Fluid Surveys; a Firewall and password protected survey platform. The
questions on the survey are as follows:

Creativity

1. How much time do you spend on creative tasks (eg. brainstorming/idea

generation) in a typical workweek? Scale increases in 8 hour increments.
1-8 Hours/week µ µ µ µ µ 32-40 Hours/week

2. Do you feel your workplace environment is conducive to completing creative

tasks?
Not at All Conducive µ µ µ µ µ Very Conducive

3. Do you feel your workplace is conducive to the non-creative tasks (eg.

answering e-mails) of your work?
Not at All Conducive µ µ µ µ µ Very Conducive

4. How detrimental are minimal errors to your creative motivation?

Not at All Detrimental µ µ µ µ µ Very Detrimental

5. How available are creative outlets (eg. spaces for collaboration) to you at
work?
Not At All Available µ µ µ µ µ Very Available

84
6. Do you use creative outlets in your work environment (eg. utilizing Lego
for creative exploration) to complete creative tasks? Please provide specific
examples.
[short answer]

Engagement

7. How available to you are the materials and equipment to do your creative
work properly?
Not at All Available µ µ µ µ µ Very Available

8. Do you feel that your environment at work provides opportunities to learn

and grow? Please provide specific examples.
[short answer]

Distraction

9. What level of personal stress is caused by making errors at work?

Not at All Stressful µ µ µ µ µ Very Stressful

10. Do barriers exist in your workplace environment that cause you to feel
distracted? Please provide specific examples.
[short answer]

References for Each Question:

1, 2, 3, 4, & 5:
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Print.
Stokols, Daniel, Chip Clitheroe, and Mary Zmuidzinas. “Qualities of Work Environments That Promote Perceived
Support for Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 14.2 (2002): 137-47. Print.

6, 7, & 8:
Lockwood, Nancy R. “Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role.” SHRM
Research Quarterly (2007): n. pag. Print.
The Gallup Q12 Survey, From: Thackray, John. “Feedback For Real.” Gallup Management Journal (n.d.): n. pag. Print.

9 &10:
Stokols, Daniel, Chip Clitheroe, and Mary Zmuidzinas. “Qualities of Work Environments That Promote Perceived
Support for Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 14.2 (2002): 137-47. Print.

85
Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide
Date: October 3rd, 2013

Principal Investigator: Faculty Supervisor:

Mariel Vandeloo, Student Tom Barker
OCAD University Director, Graduate Program in Digital Futures
613-804-0096 OCAD University
[email protected] [email protected]
416-977-6000, Ext. 2056

Focus group discussions are to be informal, and conducted in-person at the

place of employment. Questions will be pre-tested with colleagues, prior to
participant focus groups. The discussions are to be based on the following:

Creativity

What kinds of creative tasks do you spend time on? What creative outlets
do you use to complete these tasks? How do these outlets assist in fostering
creativity?

Do you feel your workplace environment is conducive to completing creative

tasks? What are the environmental conditions like when you feel most creative
at work?

Do you feel your workplace environment is conducive to completing non-

creative tasks? What are the environmental conditions like when completing
non-creative tasks?

What is your perception about the consequences of making minimal errors at

work? Does making errors at work cause you to feel stressed?

Engagement

How does your environment at work provide opportunities to learn and grow?

How clearly do you know your work expectations?

86
Distraction

What barriers in the workplace environment cause you to feel distracted, if any?

General

Are there any additional comments about how the physical environment affects
your creativity at work?

Describe your ideal work environment, and why it is ideal for you or discuss
improvements that could be made for a better workplace.

87
Appendix C: Letter of Participant Invitation/Consent Form
Date: October 3rd, 2013

Principal Investigator: Faculty Supervisor:

Mariel Vandeloo, Student Tom Barker
OCAD University Director, Graduate Program in Digital Futures
613-804-0096 OCAD University
[email protected] [email protected]
416-977-6000, Ext. 2056

You are invited to participate in a study that involves research. The purpose
of this study is to improve our understanding of creative work environments
through analyzing the effects that creative office design has on the individuals
within, with attention to levels of creativity, engagement, and distraction.

What’s Involved
As a participant, you will be asked to participate in part A of the study or part A
& B (outlined below).

Part A: Survey
You will be asked to respond to a short online survey regarding your experiences
in your work environment: creativity, engagement, and levels of distraction. The
survey should take 10-20 minutes to complete.

Part B: Focus Groups

After completing the survey, if you wish to be included in a group discussion,
you will be asked to discuss the above topics in greater detail along with your
colleagues. This discussion will likely take up to 30 minutes to complete.

Potential Benefits & Risks

Possible benefits of participation include self-analysis of work ethic, and
creative drivers. On a larger scale, participating in this study would contribute to
the growing field of workplace innovation research.

While I will ensure confidentiality of the information you provide as best as

I can, please be aware that there is always a risk that you can be identified.
While I hope you will speak openly, I am aware that you may feel uncomfortable
expressing any possible negative comments about your work. If you feel
answering questions about your workplace is private, you may feel some

88
discomfort answering some of the questions. You do not need to answer
questions that you do not want to answer or that make you feel uncomfortable.
Your name and information will not be included in the study unless stated in
this form.

You will not be paid to participate in this study.

Confidentiality
All information you provide is considered confidential; your name will not
be included or, in any other way, associated with the data collected in the
study, unless selected below. While confidentiality can be maintained by the
researcher, its maintenance cannot be guaranteed by the other members of the
discussion group.

Visual documentation (photography) of the workplace environment will be

used as supplementary information in the study.

Access to the data will be restricted to the principle student investigator

(Mariel Vandeloo) and the principle advisor (Tom Barker).

Voluntary Participation
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you wish, you may decline to answer
any questions or participate in any component of the study. Further, you may
decide to withdraw from this study at any time, or to request withdrawal of your
data (prior to data analysis), and you may do so without any penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are entitled.

Publication Of Results
Results of this study may be published in a student thesis report (Major
Research Project), as well as a presentation at the 2014 DEEP (Designing
Enabling Economies and Policies) conference. In any publication, data will be
presented in aggregate forms. Quotations from surveys or focus groups will not
be attributed to you without your permission. A summary of the findings will be
provided to you upon completion of the major research project (.pdf document
via e-mail).

89
Contact Information And Ethics Clearance
If you have any questions about this study or require further information,
please contact the Principal Investigator, Mariel Vandeloo, or the Faculty
Supervisor, Tom Barker (where applicable) using the contact information
provided above. This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance
through the Research Ethics Board at OCAD University [2014-07]. If you have
any comments or concerns, please contact the Research Ethics Office through
[email protected].

Consent Form
I agree to participate in this study described above. I have made this decision
based on the information I have read in the Information-Consent Letter. I have
had the opportunity to receive any additional details I wanted about the study
and understand that I may ask questions in the future. I understand that I may
withdraw this consent at any time.

I wish to be attributed for my contribution to this research study. You may

use my name alongside statements and/or quotations that you have collected
from me.

I wish to participate in Part A of the study.

I wish to participate in Part A and Part B of the study.

Name: __________________________________

Signature: ________________________________

Date: ___________________________________

Thank you for your assistance in this project. Please keep a copy of this form for
your records

90
 Appendix D: REB Approval Letter

Research Ethics Board

January 31, 2014
Research Ethics Board
Dear Mariel Vandeloo,
January 31, 2014
RE: OCADU 152 “An Exploration of the Effects of Pro-Creative Office Design in
Creative Workplaces.”
Dear Mariel Vandeloo,
The OCAD University Research Ethics Board has reviewed the above-named
RE: OCADU
submission.152The“Anprotocol
Exploration of the
and the Effects
consent of Pro-Creative
form dated JanuaryOffice Design
31, 2014 in
are approved for
Creative Workplaces.”
use for the next 12 months. If the study is expected to continue beyond the expiry date
(January 30, 2015 you) are responsible for ensuring the study receives re-approval. Your
The OCAD University
final approval Research
number Ethics Board has reviewed the above-named
is 2014-07.
submission. The protocol and the consent form dated January 31, 2014 are approved for
use for the next
Before 12 months.
proceeding withIfyour
the study is expected
project, complianceto continue
with otherbeyond theUniversity
required expiry date
(January 30, 2015 you) are responsible for ensuring the study receives re-approval.
approvals/certifications, institutional requirements, or governmental authorizations Yourmay
final be
approval number is 2014-07.
required. It is your responsibility to ensure that the ethical guidelines and approvals of
those facilities or institutions are obtained and filed with the OCAD U REB prior to the
Before proceeding
initiation of anywith your project, compliance with other required University
research.
approvals/certifications, institutional requirements, or governmental authorizations may
be required. It is
If, during theyour responsibility
course to ensure
of the research, therethat
arethe
anyethical
seriousguidelines and approvals
adverse events, changesofin the
thoseapproved
facilities protocol
or institutions are obtained
or consent form or and
any filed
new with the OCAD
information that U REB
must beprior to the with
considered
initiation of any
respect to theresearch.
study, these should be brought to the immediate attention of the Board.

If, during the course

The REB of theberesearch,
must also notified there
of theare any serious
completion or adverse events,
termination changes
of this studyinand
the a final
approved
reportprotocol
providedor before
consentyou
form or any new
graduate. The information that must be considered with
template is attached.
respect to the study, these should be brought to the immediate attention of the Board.
Best wishes for the successful completion of your project.
The REB must also be notified of the completion or termination of this study and a final
reportYours
provided before you graduate. The template is attached.
sincerely,

Best wishes for the successful completion of your project.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Kerr, Chair, OCAD U Research Ethics Board

Tony Kerr, Chair, OCAD U Research Ethics Board

OCAD U Research Ethics Board: rm 7520c, 205 Richmond Street W, Toronto, ON M5V 1V3
416.977.6000 x474

91
OCAD U Research Ethics Board: rm 7520c, 205 Richmond Street W, Toronto, ON M5V 1V3
416.977.6000 x474
Appendix E: Personal Communications Transcripts
Date: March 30th, 2014

Principal Investigator: Faculty Supervisor:

Mariel Vandeloo, Student Tom Barker
OCAD University Director, Graduate Program in Digital Futures
613-804-0096 OCAD University
[email protected] [email protected]
416-977-6000, Ext. 2056

Participant: Audio File: 201 40327 141 226, Participant unknown

Individual Interview
Transcriptionist’s Initials: TD

I: Thank you. Okay we should be able to get through this pretty quickly. There’s only ten questions. So
what kind of creative tasks do you spend time on in this space? And what tools or outlets do you use to
complete these tasks?

R: I don’t spend much time here at all because I find it too noisy and too distracting. When I (see
this project)…that’s not really a function I think of this space. I mean you can see it’s not very
crowded right now…but I like quiet when I’m working. And sometimes in here it gets too noisy
and also I get too many interruptions and I can’t…I can’t / I like to focus on a task. So I don’t use
this space at all except for group projects and I’m actually about to have a group project here at
2:30.

I: Okay. Are the interruptions from other people that are around?

R: Yeah. People come up and ask me stuff and I just prefer to focus when I’m working.

I: Uh-huh. So what’s your ideal workplace?

R: Quiet room, me by myself with several hours to complete whatever task I’m working
on and then coming back together as a group.

I: Okay. Cool. So…you kind of answered this already…do you feel that this work place…environment is
conducive to completing creative tasks?

R: It is when you have to get together as a team. Just because I mean it’s / there’s five or six
different places for people to sit in groups and talk and there’s one quieter spot in there…the…
the room across the way where the two ladies are. And so it worked well for that for creative
problem solving. It’s just not great for me when I’m trying to focus on a task and get something
done.

I: Right. Was this space redesigned recently? Do you know that?

R: I don’t really know. I know it’s a pretty new space.

92
I: Okay. Um…so are they / you mentioned already that people sometimes distract you…are there any
other barriers in the workplace that make you feel like you don’t want to work here?

R: Well what would be handy is one of my classmates did a project for creation and
computation where / she actually did a project called HUSH which had a microphone and
it measured the noise in the space and you could see it online. They did it just as a project
and so they took it offline afterward but actually that would be extraordinarily useful
because if I knew for example that it was really quiet in here and I wanted to have a
conversation with like one other person and I could check that at my house up north then
I would actually come down here. But if there’s a risk that it’s going to be super noisy or
whatnot I’d just say well let’s just meet somewhere else. Let’s meet at a quiet coffee shop
because it’s probably quieter. You know?

I: Okay. So I guess my next question would be are there any improvements that you would make to this
space?

R: You know space is always an issue in that we don’t have enough of it. But…they have these
little carrels over here that create kind of a little bit of a private space but maybe if there were
a couple of other ways to create a private space within this…like I know at “X” they have these
little pods that are basically little nooks or corners and you can pull around…basically it’s a
flexible barrier that basically shuts and closes that space and then when you’re done you open it
back up. And it’s a way to create a private space in a public space and it’s quitter.

I: So you mainly use this room for group projects.

R: Yeah when my classmates want to meet here / like I’m meeting with three gals in
twenty minutes here…we’ll meet here and it’s fine. And they / my classmates seem to
not be nearly as bothered by the noise as I am. So it works for that. I don’t mind meeting
them here. It’s a place where everyone can meet, it’s central, it’s right where we go to
school so it’s convenient.

I: It’s convenient.

R: Yeah.

I: So when you meet here with groups do you use any of the tools? Do you use whiteboards or…do you
sit in this area? Or would you sit a table?

R: We usually sit at tables because they’re round or mostly round and / so it’s conducive
to conversation. I don’t use many tools in this room mostly because I have a lot of them
at home. I have a little workshop but there’s great tools here in the sense that there’s
soldering irons which we need, there’s all sorts of print formats, there’s hook-up wire and
widgets that we need to create or projects. So / it doesn’t have nearly as many of those as
we need and that’s a function of budget but you know…it’s a place to start. So you can
actually get your hands dirty and actually work on projects that we create for class.

I: Awesome.

R: Yeah. It’s not bad in terms of tools there just needs to be more of them and probably
could be replaced more frequently. I’m thinking about the soldering iron.

93
Participant: Audio File: 201 40327 142 443, Participant unknown
Individual Interview
Date of Transcription: March 30, 2014
Transcriptionist’s Initials: TD

I: So do you guys use this space?

R(1): Yes.

R(2): No.

[Laughter] /

I: So how come you don’t use the space?

R(2): I do have enough space myself.

I: It’s more convenient?

R(2): Yeah it’s ten minutes from here so it’s like no use. But the main issue is we’re too
many people. We’re just too many. It doesn’t matter how you slice it. We’re just too
many people with too many different needs. Right? To consolidate in one space.

I: Okay.

R(1): So I use this space quite a bit and I think I come here because by nature I like to do
a lot of things collaboratively even if it’s an individual project…kind of getting (in while
there are others here) but it is distracting to do work a lot of the times but I find that I get
unexpected learning opportunities by coming here and I learn new things. So it’s kind of
a tradeoff.

I: Okay. Cool. So what kind of / when you are in this space if ever what kind of stuff do you work on
while you’re here?

R(1): I guess I’ll answer that. I work on like a lot of project and group meetings and we end up
to discuss a lot and we have a lot of our group meetings here because it’s convenient to get
here. I have a group right now working on the [inaudible with background noise] ( ) it’s kind of
a separate group and it’s just nice and central to be able to talk to everyone upstairs. If I can just
hop upstairs quickly and talk to them it’s nice that it’s in the same building as all of the admin
staff.

R(2): Group stuff.

I: Group stuff.

R(2): Whenever there is group stuff.

I: Okay. When you are in here do you use any tools in the room like white boards, or…where would you
sit? Would you sit here or at a table?

R: I mainly sit at the tables and a lot of the stuff that we share is over our computers. We do

94
occasionally use the whiteboards but I find that I don’t use it too often. The storage spaces are
especially useful at the beginning of the semester when we have a lot of arduino projects, a lot
of circuitry and a lot of wires everywhere. It’s just a pain in the ass to carry it home every day. So
that’s just good in terms of even just storage space at school.

I: Okay.

R(2): Whiteboard.

I: Cool.

R(2): Quite a bit. At the tables where we can collaborate.

I: Okay. When you’re working here are you typically doing…creative tasks? Like brainstorming or are
you doing more…emails or writing? If that makes sense?

R(2): Creative.

I: Creative stuff?

R(1): A mixture of both for me depending on if I’m doing solo work or group work that day.

I: Okay. Um…what’s your ideal workspace? Or how would you make this space better?

R(2): Well it’s two very different questions.

I: True. Okay what’s your ideal workspace?

R(2): A box with a door.

I: A what?

R(2): A box with a door.

I: Okay.

R(2): It depends on the task right? I mean the ideal…workspace / my ideal workspace would
be…enough separate rooms for work areas for a bit of privacy where you can do work,
brainstorming with people…and allowing…where you can actually…like...you know talk with
people or get in consorts with other stuff. But I think what’s wrong with it / like that room / half
the / like that room it divided into two or three other /

I: Smaller rooms?

R(2): like little slots. Not even individual rooms necessarily. But some are like two or three
people can sit by themselves and do things but it’s separated from the general area…might
make more sense than having one large room where you can work where in the end there’s only
two or three people sitting in there.

I: Okay.

95
R(1): Another way I would go which was really helpful in my undergrad actually was our library
space. So the large library space was quiet space. Everyone sat in the same area and it was quiet
and they did their own individual work. But then you’d have individual study rooms where the
groups would go and work. So you wouldn’t have the competing noise of the different groups
trying to talk over each other. And each of the rooms had its own smart board and stuff that
they could pull up.

R(2): Yeah I think that would be ideal. But the key again is that people can break up all those
walls and…turn them into two or three like that. Too many people are coming in. If you have
30 students per year, every (two years) [inaudible]…so maybe if you can accommodate six so
maybe have a sign at the back somewhere with you know…two hours /

I: Some sort of schedule.

R(2): some sort of schedule where you can like self-scheduling in two hour blocks for your
group and have the rest be quiet space. I / if the rest would be quiet space then this would be
viable as a group space where you can do individual stuff and if you can segregate out enough
little boxes where they can go and like really close the door and some might be glass…you
know? So that it’s not all crazy. Um…that would really help.

I: Okay. You’ve already sort of answered this but um…what sort of distractions exist in this space?
Mainly it seems like noise and space.

R(1): Noise, space, and just even having and just even having our friends here can be a
distraction because it’s hard not to talk to your friends. I find myself doing a lot of the
headphones in.

I: Yeah.

R(2): Yeah…it’s just general / it’s general group work next to people trying to do individual work.

I: Yeah. So I think we’re done. Are there any other comments about this workplace that you guys have?

R(2): Well the last thing ( ) trying to create individual stations for people and a couple of
common tables I really believe that they should have just made the common area sort of a
quiet area…and then have rooms for groups. Even if they just / make that room over there three
community tables in there. And then have three groups working loudly in parallel because
they are only brainstorming and talking loudly anyway right? And then the door closes and
everybody / 20 people can sit in here and actually work on their individual stuff.

I: Right.

R(1): I think also in terms of the equipment that’s provided if they’re going to provide us with
free printers, scanners and all those things it has to be clearly indicated who’s responsible for
taking care of that equipment and maintaining it so if we run out of toner we don’t run out of
printers. And we can find and talk to someone and just overall…like who is responsible for what
in the room because sometimes we don’t know who to contact to take care of it.

I: It gets neglected.

R(1): Yeah.

96
R(2): Get rid of the kitchens. Seriously. Get rid of the kitchens.

R(1): I think a lot of people use the kitchens. It’s a nice like hub in-between classes and breaks. A
lot of people go in there and make food and tea and stuff.

R(2): Yeah but at least get rid of the dishes.

R(1): True. The dishes are kind of a mess.

R(2): I remember when ( ) last year like 500 emails with someone made a mess. Who did that?
It’s like food and everybody…like it’s a lot of like whatever. Like with the coffee maker, tea maker,
and the microwave.

I: And then to have everyone bring their own.

R(2): And then to have everybody bring ( ).

I: So was this space redesigned recently? Do you know?

R(2): Yes last year. Last year it was redesigned. It was…hexagon…two, four, six…are they
octagons? Are they hexagons? Is that what they are? They were brought in here.

R(1): Yeah. Like a student from your year.

R(2): Yeah a bunch of people sat together like an architect and an industrial designer and
started to revamp it. It improved vastly compared to what it was before. More white boards,
more things…but again it did not / like this thing where you can pull things down from the
ceiling and retract there…but I don’t think it addressed the core of the issue which is the
(problem) between individual quiet work and the group work in the space. And that would
require structural changes in the sense where I think walls would have…more dividers would
have to be put up.

I: Okay. Great.

R(2): And I actually think / as I said if this wall would go…it would split this in three. Where the
pillar is if they would just put one wall there as a kind of hallway to those boxes from the door to
the boxes I think it would block a lot of the noise coming…out of that area without really closing
this completely. And that could even be see-through plastic. Like a plexi-wall where you could
possibly wright on it with markers. Right? Like the whiteboard markers on the glass. Because
then you would have a whole new surface that you could scribble on. Or get rid / well they tried
/ make all the walls ( ) then you can get rid of all the white walls which we use as the (clutter
room) in a sense because (clutter is used).

R(2): Just in terms of a workspace. I’m a messy person anyway so I’m used to it but...but
I think to keep this space tidy and kind of focused on what you really want to do rather than
seeing everybody’s stuff kicking stuff. And then you start thinking well this looks awesome. I’ll
try one of those or we should tinker with that. So…those are the little things. And this could be
/ again these are things that could be easily done by putting a glass thing up here that’s half
height but you still have the sun, you still see out of it. But it will cover a lot of those things.

97
I: Yeah. Great.

R(2): But that’s just me. Honestly I spend so little time here. More like in the first semester or
two until I found ( ) so I am probably the wrong person to ask. I always have opinions.

I: That’s good. Thank you guys so much for your help.

R(2): You’re welcome. I hope it was helpful. Maybe some insights. But a heavy-user of the space
and a non-user of the space. Now you just have to pull in a “X” or somebody who’s occasionally
using the space. Then you have the perfect ideal for the two extremes in the middle that should
figure it out. Alright.

I: Thank you guys.

98
Participant: Audio File: 201 40327 144032, Participant unknown
Individual Interview
Date of Transcription: April 2, 2014
Transcriptionist’s Initials: TD

I: Okay do you frequently use this space…would you say?

R: No.

I: No?

R: No I have a deal with / if you know “X” /

I: Oh yeah.

R: they have…games / they have space. I have a deal with them and I work there.

I: Okay. Cool.

R: I find it’s a good space.

I: Did you used to work here more?

R: Last year yeah.

I: Okay.

R: Yeah. Last year I worked here more.

I: What kinds of tasks did you do when you were here? Like was it more creative stuff or was it more…
/

R: More um…like when I was here it was mostly like when we did like arduino stuff. Like stuff
that needed a physical component because I needed the space with my project at that time.
Now I can do it from my apartment but yeah but if I need / generally I do computer games so I
just need the laptop. So yeah.

I: Okay cool. When you’re here do you work more by yourself or is it more group work?

R: If I’m here it’s usually more social.

I: Yeah.

R: I find it hard to work here…by yourself as a social person. Because there’s always people
working here and I tend to try and be social. Where if I was working like / and not necessarily
even working but working at “X” because then you’re working in another space…it gives you
another view…everyone is social and everything but everyone has their job and everyone they’re
professional and you get paid. It’s their job.

I: Right. They’re there to work.

99
R: Yeah. So you can be social but you don’t like…the seating here doesn’t work. You know?
Occasionally…in here if you have to. In here you feel like more…/

I: Yeah. Is it assigned seating there at “X”? Or do you sit wherever?

R: No. No you sit wherever. I think they’re planning to do…like some dedicated spaces for people
if they have like big computers and stuff like that but it’s basically just like groups.

I: Okay. Cool. So do feel like this workplace is conducive to creative tasks? Do you feel like you can be
creative in this space?

R: Um…it might be too small. It’s too small. And there is…I think maybe / it’s also because we
changed the design from last year…and this design is more open…which is fine. I just wish / it’s
good for group work but you see like just for people talking...it’s like… /

I: Yeah it gets loud quickly.

R: Yeah. So we / generally if we want quiet we will work in that space but again it’s a tiny
space and it’s dark. So I would say it’s a bit problematic for me…as someone who has trouble
concentrating. Yeah.

I: Do you / when you’re here /

R: But if it’s Sunday night and nobody’s here it’s quiet.

I: Yeah?

R: Yeah it’s quiet and it’s pleasant and the lights with the city.

I: It’s awesome. Yeah.

R: Yeah. It’s really nice. But during most of the time it’s too loud and too small.

I: When you’re here do you use tools in the room? Like do you use the whiteboards?

R: I don’t. Not me personally just because I didn’t /

I: Didn’t have any reason to?

R: didn’t have any reason to. There was one project which was a good project and we used the
whiteboard. I used the ( ) when I was doing arduino stuff if I need like (transformers) and stuff
like that. Yeah um…I think it’s a good place to work in a group.

I: Okay. So you sort of already answered this. Are there distractions? What kind of distractions?

R: For me it’s noise. Just noise. Like I can’t work with noise. And like yeah…I try and be social and
then like…I can’t concentrate. I find like at the “X” which is quiet and you know…occasionally I
talk to people but I think there is better for me.

I: So how does this space compare to “X”?

100
R: I like “X” more just in terms of / not the actual space. I actually really like the fact that this
space has a ton of light. Which is fantastic. Like this giant window…it’s gorgeous at night by the
way because cities are always looks better at night as a rule. It’s not very nice / this I like but
I think that it’s too small and I think that the way it’s organized because they wanted it to be
both for groups and for individuals it makes it very hard for me to work here. And you also have
some / I don’t know if it has anything to do with…and you might know them / but we had these
students at the beginning of the year…with new students…who were staying here and sleeping
and making a big mess.

I: Oh no.

R: It made the experience of being here less pleasant.

I: Yeah.

R: So yeah. But I wasn’t the only one who commented on that. I think for…it’s hard to
concentrate. If you work individually. I think if you work in a group it’s better.

I: So how does “X” work? Is it like a monthly membership?

R: Yeah it’s a monthly membership but I don’t / I help them on occasion so I can stay there for
free. Because they’re very nice and they’re quite / and “X” knows I’m poor. But there I think
they have a monthly membership and I think it depends on / like they have a few types of
memberships. It’s a good space. It’s a good co-working space.

I: Is it mostly like solo work that you do there or do you have friends there?

R: I have friends there but I mostly do solo work.

I: Okay.

R: But it’s a good / sometimes there are people who work there are in a group with each other
on projects. Yeah.

I: Is it mainly like one big open space? Or are there meeting rooms?

R: I think there’s one big open space with desks and there’s a smaller space with no desks…
usually like if there’s a project that has like physical components or if you want to sit in quiet.
And there is an office and there’s also upstairs they also have developed a smaller space which
usually has like…big events there. They always have like events there. I mean…in terms of like…
what like I like and didn’t like and stuff like that with “X” I do actually really like the fact that
this space has a lot of light. Yeah like but…the size, the noise, the fact that the other side is kind
of just labs and…the kitchen is like…it’s not…I mean I know they tried…last year but it’s just
not…a way to / like there’s no / there should be someone / if it was seriously for / like if you’re
looking for a serious space…if you wanted to have coffees and stuff like that there should have
been someone in charge…same with all the cabinets and keeping the place clean. Unless there
is someone. You know I cleaned up a lot last year. Because I’m the class representative so we
had some…I don’t know / it said…he and “X” and “X” the three people designed…redesigned
the space. And “X” was the cut he cut the chairs and the desks and stuff like that so he knows
a lot about how they decided to organize this. And there was a lot of garbage here of like either

101
programs that were here before and stuff like that so I spent like a few days running around,
cleaning those like and all kinds of garbage. Like…at the beginning of the year we all tried but
while we started our projects...doing stuff was just impossible.

[Transcriber’s note: someone outside of the interview has interrupted the recording]

R: Hello “X”.

[Transcriber’s note: Interruption begins at 9:39 and continues until the end of recording.]

I: I think we’re done.

102
Participant: Audio File: 201 40327 145 754, Participant unknown
Individual Interview
Date of Transcription: April 2, 2014
Transcriptionist’s Initials: TD

[Transcriber’s note: the interview recording starts in the middle of the interviewee’s sentence]

R: Myself, “X”, “X” and “X” but sadly “X” left the program to continue with work from the “X”.

I: Oh wow.

R: Yeah it was pretty good actually the work that he was getting ready to do for his thesis just
took off and so…you know you do this work so that you can get those opportunities so why
side-step for the future? And “X” was just really sharing insights so really it was just down to
me. So in the summer I just cut these ridiculously shaped tables and stuff because certain ( ) is
really expensive and we had a small budget so I just made it myself.

I: Okay.

R: Yeah we hung one unit at a jaunty angle but it’s safe. We have two more to hang but it takes a
lot of time to be able to do your own concrete so if other people want to hang them they can do
it.

I: Yeah. So what were the major challenges when you were redesigning?

R: So we / my background is in architecture so I’m used to this but I’ve never really engaged
with teams of stakeholders before. So I worked on hospital design and they would work with
the nurses to / the Heads of all the departments just to say like how do you want your hospital
designed for the future? And so it was down to me to really do that with the class and we had
a lot of conflicting desires coming into play. I know it’s weird but four carols over there…so
we used to have like double…maybe even triple that amount and they were all along the side
there and cutting the space up. So I took away quite a few of them and I left four because there
was still some people who wanted to work there. Really only two are ever used. There are two
individuals in the class that really like that type of environment but everybody else / like this is
exactly why I designed this space…what’s going on right there with two different kind of groups
happening. So yeah the challenge was just getting…consensus with people and providing what
everyone needed which is very diverse. Right? And then…setting it up took a lot of time. I was
working in “X” at the time so I would come home on the weekends and my wife was like and
you’re just spending time at school again. Yeah.

I: So do you work here often?

R: Yeah I come here most days of the week for various reasons. I’m trying to finish my thesis,
meetings, I have two (internships) on the go so I’m either working in the lab across the street or
working in here. Yeah there’s tons of reasons…like there’s equipment that I need to borrow from
the school so I’m always bouncing in and out.

I: So do you think that this room has the proper…tools and do you use a lot of the things here?

R: I wish that we had more equipment here. Like we only have a few arduinos here available for

103
rental and for booking out. So “X” has machines that you can use your student card and like take
it out at all hours of the day and we don’t have that. So for big pieces I have to go upstairs and
book it out ahead of time and I wish we had more stuff like that just hanging around. It’s not /
we’re not in desperate straits but it could be better. In big way it could be better.

I: What about distractions? Are there /

R: Yeah well this room is loud. Um…ideally that meeting room would be cut into two so that we
could have two smaller meeting rooms because it’s used for private meetings. The door is open
right now but sometimes there is something going on and they’ll close it. There should be two of
those spaces.

I: So that was a limitation when you redesigned?

R: Yeah we couldn’t redo it. You’ll notice there’s walls / plugs in that wall. Any wall that has
electrical work in it…it costs like ten times as much money to work with because you have to
rewire the electricity running through it. So you couldn’t do any work with it. This woman “X”
she has an architectural background as well…she took it very personally that we wanted to
redesign this room because she helped plan it in the first place. And she was like well this is
what they asked for and I was like well this is the first time that a program was ever established.
They were just shooting in the dark what they needed and now we have a better idea with how
the program is run. So we couldn’t physically change anything…it’s expensive and you were
stepping on her toes.

I: Right. Okay.

R: And actually those lockers too. They wanted to move those lockers and make that space over
there more like a messy space and make the lockers over here somewhere and she wouldn’t let
us do that either. There was just a lot of little things that really held back the potential on how
this space could be used. Yeah. And we’ve got way more lockers than we needed I think. That’s
universities for you. In one of my labs there’s a whole set of lockers and not a single one is used.

I: Oh no. Okay…um…I think that’s pretty much it. You’ve answered all my questions. Is there any other
comments that you have about it that you /

R: Um…no. I like / like we have a lot of whiteboards now. Something like…but maybe too many
at this point? Some of these notes have been up here for a while. So it’s a work in progress.
People need to…people have been given an opportunity to voice their opinions about the space
but part of the challenge when I did this renovations “X” told me that there were stipulations /
that getting the money was stipulated upon getting a consensus going forward that the decision
that I made were good. Having any insurrection wouldn’t be good. And actually these couches
when we got them they weren’t supposed to be white. They were supposed to be orange. The
fear was that these were going to look worse after a while. And so she heard that people were
upset that they were going to be white and she lost it. So the / the conversation about how to
improve this space is being stifled.

I: Oh well. What can you do?

R: I can’t do anything. I’m graduating and so I don’t feel like I need to do anything more. I tried
my best.

104
Participant: Audio File: 201 40328 152 946, Participant unknown
Individual Interview
Date of Transcription: April 3, 2014
Transcriptionist’s Initials: TD

I: Okay so they are pretty basic questions about the space. Like I guess…do you typically do…creative
work or…what kind of stuff do you do?

R: Creative is a strange name for me because I think that anything can be done creatively.
There’s no creative and uncreative work. But if you ask about my particular type of work I’m a
strategist and I am directly involved in clients leading their projects. I’m working through /

[Transcriber’s note: Someone walks by and briefly interrupts the interview]

R: working through / as you can tell there are also lots of distractions in the office. Constantly.
Problem solving, leading the project, leading the work packages. The type of projects that I
get involved are more design and technology related because of my background. So we have
strategists in the company but each one of them / they kind of have a different interest.

I: Focus.

R: And focus.

I: Okay.

R: Based on their interest and based on their educational background. I tend to work more for
“X” and her clients and I lead a team of engineers and designers.

I: Okay. Do you feel like this workplace is conducive to your being creative?

R: Totally. It’s both because sometimes I feel like it helped me to think more creatively, and
question things, and look at things from different perspectives and to be honest a lot of it is
not necessarily driven by the space it’s because of the people that I work with and the different
perspectives that they bring. But sometimes I also feel like working in this industry for four
years which I think is a long time brings the client disease in the company in the sense that you
always get a problem which boxes you already. And beyond that you even have to box it further.
So sometimes I feel like / since I left university I’ve lost that kind of you know…blue sky, really
creative academic creativity which is a little naïve because you’re not dealing with any real-
world experience but it’s also truly purely creative. So I think I’m more realistic and grounded
which you can say designing with more restraints you can argue that it actually requires more
creativity. But at the same time I’m not as good as coming up with completely new crazy ideas
as I was when I was back in school.

I: Okay. Awesome. How do you guys handle making minimal mistakes? Like are mistakes encouraged
or like… /

R: It depends on what you call a mistake. Like I told you prototyping is part of the culture
because we want to fail fast because failure is definitely part of the process and we can’t / no
matter how much you plan you can’t expect everything to go according to the plan but you try
to make the mistakes…as many mistakes as possible in the front to avoid / first of all to avoid

105
repeating the same mistakes and also to make better mistakes because there is a difference
between a good mistake and a bad mistake. And it’s better to get the stupid mistakes out of the
way /

I: Out of the quickly.

R: And ask more telling questions or…you know as an example if you get a project where the
client asks you to meet three different criteria and one is about taking both visibility…like
business constraints and make sure what the user wants to buy it, or use it and adopt it. And
if you fail to meet any of those that’s a pretty bad mistake. But for instance if you thought that
you were designing that product for the early adopters, generation X and halfway through you
realize that you’ve made the wrong assumption and you’re able to correct that mistake I would
say that’s an acceptable one.

I: Okay. Would you say that this culture provides opportunities for people to learn and grow as like
designers?

R: Yes it does but it also requires a specific personality and no one will come and tell you that
you have to grow…or like nobody will school you. You have to want it and ask for it and be
continuously asking for it. Like you have to. And it’s both good and bad and not everybody can
even fit in that culture and we have people who have not changed their position in the past
three or four years and they’re probably comfortable with that or they may not be…they’re just
shy about it. Right?

I: Right.

R: It’s a combination of both but I think if you want it and ask for there’s definitely opportunity.

I: Awesome. Um…so you mentioned like sometimes because the culture is so…friendly there are
distractions. What would you say are the main distractions and are they detrimental to your work?

R: Sometimes they are. Especially when you have like two whiney (docs) around you. I can’t
work in that circumstance and that’s why we have the project rooms where we can go and lock
the doors. We realized that we don’t have enough of them which is why we’re thinking about
reconfiguring the office and probably adding more um office rooms or / sorry group projects. Or
sometimes I just like put my headphones on to concentrate because…yeah…once in a while you
have the flexibility to work from home and sometimes I do that.

I: That’s good.

R: If I have to write something and I don’t want to talk to anyone I just have to put my head
down and write.

I: Um…that was all of my questions unless you have any extra comments that you want to make?

R: Not really. I think one of the things that I’ve noticed in other cultures that has changed a lot
since I first joined the company / and a lot of that was a result of growing in size…it became
less of a (flag) culture and we had to introduce hierarchy…not in a crazy sense. Some level of
hierarchy, some level of structure. For instance we never wouldlog our hours. Now we have this
system to log your hours just to know / not to track when people come in or leave but just to
know who’s working on what and to be able to manage the resources. So things change. The

106
company culture is like a living person because it grows, it changes the mood, it does all of
those crazy things. Some people accept it and some people don’t and that becomes the reason
that they leave. We’ve had situations where people / because it felt like a start-up four years
ago and now it feels like a company. To me it’s like of course. Because that’s the kind of culture
that they want…this small intimate kind of a start-up culture. And I still feel that we’re doing a
decent job in keeping that but there are compromises that we have to make when the company
grows in size.

107