R EPO.R T RESUMESED 020 622A FACULTY OFFICE STUDY. DESIGN AND EVALUATION.

BY- CARPENTER, C.R. AND OTHERSPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK

EDRS PRICE MF-80.25 NC-41.00 23P.

EF 000 483

PUB DATE DEC 61

DESCRIPTORS- *BUILDING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION NEEDS, DESIGN

NEEDS, FACILITY CASE STUDIES, FACILITY GUIDELINES, HIGHEDUCATION, MODELS,- OFFICES (FACILITIES),

ASSUMING THAT ADEQUATE OFFICES FOR SERVING THE NEEDS OF

FACULTY AND STAFF MEMBERS SHOULD BE PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTERAS INTEGRAL PARTS OF FACILITIES, RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND

RESULTS REPORTED ON THE DESIGN OF A TWO-PERSON FACULTY AND/OR

STAFF OFFICE. A FULL SCALE, PROTOTYPE MODEL WAS DEVELOPED FOR

THE TWO - PERSON OFFICE AND TESTED FOR ECONOMICALEFFECTIVENESS, POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS WITH OTHER OFFICE SPACES

AND RELATED FACILITIES. OFFICE LOCATION, SPATIAL ARRANGEMENTS

FOR STAFF OFFICES, AND OTHER SUBJECTS ARE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO

PRESENTING THE RESEARCH RESULTS. THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD,

PROTOTYPE MODEL, SOLUTIONS, AND THE TEST RESULTS AREDESCRIBED. COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY, CIRCULATION PATTERNS,

AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ARE EVALUATED FROM THE BASIC MODEL AS

ARE SIMILAR OFFICE MODULES TO TEST FLEXIBILITY,EXPANDIBILITY, AND CONVERTABILITY. THE APPENDICES CONTAIN THE

QUESTIONNAIRE FORM AND STATEMENTS FROM FACULTY INTERVIEWS

USED IN THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE. THE IDEA OF PROVIDING A

FULL-SCALE MODEL OF SEVERAL OF THE PROPOSED OFFICES ANDEVALUATING THEM PRIOR TO DESIGN FOR PERMANENT BUILDINGS IS A

TECHNIQUE WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE

SOLUTION OF A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WHICH CONFRONT DESIGNERS OF

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. (BH)

,1,1,.......

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATIONS WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUNEM rat SEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGAINUTIOH ORIGINATINGIT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTOFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR P0110.

NMI

AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES LABORATORIES PROJECT REPORT

r-\111/I \11,1

ru-N

A FACULTY OFFICE STUDY: DESIGN AND EVALUATION

C. R. CARPENTER

L. P. GREENHILL

R. E SPENCER

BY

A. R. BIGATEL

W. H. WIEGAND

J. D. MILLER

J. M. CARTEY

DIVISION OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND SERVICES

AND

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL PLANT PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA

DECEMBER 1961

Supported by a grant from the Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.477 Madison Avenue, New York 22, New York

tilINIPOISMINSEISIM,""1=221111M11111102231Migan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Department of Physical Plant Planning and Construction and the Division of Aca-demic Research and Services of The Pennsylvania State University wish to express their

appreciation to the following persons who assisted in the project:

Furniture supplied by: J. Wilkinson, Bellefonte, Pa.

Furniture loaned by: Otto Mueller, Housing Division, The Pennsylvania

State University

Photographs by: J. Mertz, Still Photography Laboratory, The PennsylvaniaState University

The architecture class of Ro!.:ert Napier, The Pennsylvania State University, con-tributed color studies and small-scale models of the faculty offices prior toactual mock-up construction.

The Department of Maintenance and Utilities built the mock-up rooms.

The Pennsylvania State University would also like to express appreciation to The Edu-

cational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., for the grant which made this study possible.

911.1.1allas.11211DOMS

ofContents

Page

Foreword . . . . . . 1

I - The Problem . . . . . . . . 2

II - An Experimental Solution . . . . . . . . 4

III - Construction Design . . . . 9

IV - Evaluation . . 13

APPENDIX I - Evaluation Sheet

APPENDIX II - Reactions of Faculty Members

Tin MAN

ofIllustrations

Figure 1 An ample private office

Figure 2 A 101x 10' office .

Figure 3 - A 10'x 10'

Figure 4

10' x 12' . .

private office plan with interofficeconnecting doors

- A "bull pen" office .

Figure 5 - The typical deep office sandwiched betweenclassrooms or laboratories .

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8and

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

- The layout of the experimental two-man office .

- The floor plan of the full-scale model built andevaluated at The Pennsylvania State University

- Other variations and combinations possiblewithin the model rooms by furniture rearrange-ment .

- Office units built on a double-loaded corridor .

- Classroom-laboratory-office building, BehrendCampus, The Pennsylvania State University .

- Now the experimental faculty offices might beused in an office building . .

- Locations from which the photographs were taken .

Figure 14 - A corner room arranged for laboratory work .

Figure 15 - Operation of the sliding wall sections

Figure 16 - A two-person work area (Office A) .

Figure 17 - A reception interview area (Office A) .

Figure 18 - An alternative arrangement of the interview area .

Figure 19 - An arrangement for a larger reception area .

Page

2a

2b

3a

3b

3c

50

5b

6a

6b

6c

6d

6e

So

8b

10

Ila

llb

12a

12b

Fel"ii*4"1"16-

FOREWORD

Faculty offices that are adequate forserving the needs of teachers, scholars,research workers, and other staff mem-bers should be planned and constructedas integral parts of most new educa-tional facilities. The shortage of teachers,the increasing salary budgets, the mount-ing responsibilities of faculty members,and the need to increase the efficiency ofteachers emphasize the desirability ofimproving their working enviecnimerds.The provision of adequate offices is abasic and necessary development forimproving the morale and efficiency ofthe faculty.

Entirely adequate faculty offices,auxiliary space, and facilities have rarelybeen provided in schools, colleges, andother academic institutions. This neglectis both deplorable and costly. There isevidence that such neglect, or lack ofemphasis on the design and constructionof faculty offices, characterizes much ofthe current and extensive planning andconstruction of new educational facilitiesthroughout the nation.

There are conditions which make itimperative for schools, colleges, and uni-versities to confront and solve the prob-lem of providing suitable offices. First,it should bo recognized that faculty mem-bers and teachers have sound justifica-tion for good offices. Their requests arenot in easonable. Such facilities seri-ously affect their morale and produc-tivity, the kinds of work done (includingscholarly efforts), their satisfaction withtheir positions, and indeed their decisionsto remain with an institution or to moveto new positions in other institutions.Faculty housing arrangements frequentlymake working at home less practicalthan was formerly the case. The growthof institutionalization is increasing theamount of time spent with colleagues,groups, committees, and students. Theincreasing emphasis on "team teaching"exemplifies this trend. Teachers are beingexpected to extend the lengths of theirworking day, week, and year. These andother conditions argue eloquently for theprovision of adequate faculty offices inall kinds of educational institutions.

Generally, educational administra-tions appear either to be unaware ofthe sound justification for faculty officesor unconvinced of their importance rela-i tive to the limitations of resources for

buildings and the urgent demands forother types of space and facilities. Regu-lations for buildings often restrict or pre-vent the inclusion of adequate officespace. Such expedient restrictions fre-quently lead to the false long-term com-pliance with traditional practices: class-rooms or laboratories are built and thenlater converted to faculty offices when itbecomes imperative to have more offices.I IIID 1=1.1%.4* IltJ 911WIAI VVLI*IG USW

ciency. The converted space is rarelysuitable because it was planned for otherpurposes. Ceiling heights, hallways, andexits are of excessive dimensions andtherefore reflect wasteful construction foroffice use. Furthermore, the efficiency ofthe faculty has been reduced over longperiods, and improvisations may neitherrepair the damage nor improve the con-ditions satisfactorily. Appropriate invest-ments of building funds in adequate buteconomical faculty offices are sound in-vestments which need to be proposed,supported, and defended at all levels ofadministration and during all stages ofbuilding and educational planning.

The project A Faculty Office Study:Design and Evaluation was conceivedduring and following discussions of thisand other problems with Dr. HaroldGores of the Educational Facilities Labor-tories, Inc. The project also reflects theinterest of the Administration of ThePennsylvania State University and of theUniversity Development Committee insolving effectively and economically theproblem of providing adequate facultyoffices for teachers, researchers, and staffof this large and expanding university.

The project was not conceived noris it proposed as a complete and com-prehensive solution for all categories offaculty office requirements. The designstudies, the full-scale construction fortesting, and the evaluation have beenlimited to exploring a model for ade-quate but economical two-person offices,varied arrangements of the basic model,and the possible uses of these arrange-ments. The idea of building a full-scalemodel of several of the proposed officesand evaluating them prior to incorpo-rating the design in permanent buildingsis a technique which would appear to beappropriate for the solution of a numberof problems which confront designers ofeducational facilities.

I THE PROBLEM

AININIMMINIIMINNIIIMMONIMMIMPW.M1111VMMriM+VO- oomsommome

Figure 1 - An ample private office 10' x 12'

Figure 2 - A 10' x 10' office

Much attention has been focused onthe classroom and laboratory areas ofacademic buildings, but little considera-tion has been given to the urea in whicha faculty member spends much of hisworking dayhis office.

In many cases economic factors donot permit private offices for each fac-

2 ulty member, and the low utilization of

some offices makes it difficult to justifyeven the minimum size of private offices.

The average private office whichwould be acceptable to most facultymembers appears to be approximately10' x 12'. An area of 10' x 10' is con-sidered minimum. Such office layoutsare shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Where private offices are provided,they ofter. exist as a series of rectangularrooms side by side. Flexibility of use isaccomplished by placing a communicat-ing door between adjacent rooms. Thisreduces the usable room area by ap-proximately one-third. Such an arrange-ment is shown in Figure 3.

In many cases where private officesare unavailable, the multiple-personoffice or "bull pen" exists. Many of theseoffices exist in old marginal-use class-rooms converted to faculty office space(see Figure 4). These areas are often in-adequately lighted and poorly venti-lated; and poor acoustics and drab en-vironment contribute little to an efficientand effective faculty office arrangement.Because the offices provide little privacy,interviews with students are discouragedand occur infrequently. Quite often thefaculty member prefers to do his neces-sary office work at his home, which re-sults in further isolation from studentsand faculty colleagues.

Often faculty offices are sandwichedinto the classroom or laboratory planareas (Figure 5). The only justificationappears to be to make the office con-venient to a specific laboratory or class-room in which the teacher may conductclasses. All of the criteria which deter-mined the classroom or laboratory de-sign, such as heavy floor structures, highceilings, depth of room, wide public cor-ridors, and the continuation of labora-tory or classroom piping and ventilationsystems, are inherent in this type of officedesign. By its location, the office is ad-jacent to all of the fumes, noises, anddistractions generated in the academiccore of the building.

In classes above the elementaryschool level, the "home room" conceptdoes not usually apply to the averageteacher. The faculty member may beassigned to teach in four or five differentlocations. At the college and universitylevel particularly, many faculty officesneed not be related to specific classroomareas.

Figure 3 -

A 10' x 10' private office planwith interoffice connecting doors

Figure 5 .The typical deep office sand.wiched between classrooms orlaboratories

II ANEXPERIMENTAL

SOLUTION

As a possible solution to the prob-lem of a faculty office that was neitherthe private office nor the multiple-personoffice, a two-person office unit was de-signed by W. H. Wiegand, Director ofthe Department of Physical Plant Plan-ning and Construction at The Pennsyl-vania State University.'

This office unit is not proposed asthe solution to all faculty office problems.If initial cost and maintenance cost arenot major problems, a private facultyoffice for each person is probably theideal solution. Where low initial andmaintenance costs and a reasonablyhigh factor of space utilization are re-quirements, it is believed that the pro-poz.ed two-person unit offers a solutionto many faculty office problems.

The proposed faculty office unit isa space with inside dimensions 12' x 16',giving a total area of 192 square feetfor two people, less than one hundredsquare feet per person. The space con-sists of two rectangular areas, each8' x 12', adjacent to each other, offsetsix feet, with six feet of contact areaopen to each other. One area has atwelve-foot exterior wall with window;the other has a twelve-foot wall on aninside corridor. The finished ceilingheight of the room is 8'0" (see Figure 6).

The unit spaces, each eight feetwide by twelve feet long, might seem tobe cramped and give a closed-in feeling.It might also appear that space alongthe corridor wall would have the effectof being an interior area without ade-quate natural lighting. In the actualspaces these conditions do not appear toexist because the two spaces are ar-ranged in a shape that makes the totalarea seem larger than it is. The totalarea of 192 square feet in a single rec-tangular shape has a visual diagonaldistance of 20 feet. In this office unit thevisual distance from corresponding cor-ners is over 25 feet. Day lighting fromthe wirdow is visible from nearly allpoints in the interior room.

The 8' x 12' space with the outsidewall is designed as an efficient workarea for two people. Two "L" shapeddesk areas are provided with a desk-high two-drawer file cabinet. Adequatechair and knee space is provided at the

John D. Miller, James M. Cartey, and Angelo R.Bigatel of the same department assisted in the

4 planning and development of the model rooms.

desk, and sufficient space exists for theinclusion of one or two additional c: nirsfor visitors.

The interior 8' x 12' area is enteredfrom the corridor by a door near oneend wall. This area is furnished withwall-to-wall carpeting and with inexpen-sive pieces of contemporary design furni-ture to provide an area where the decorand function are in contrast to the adja-cent work area.

This interview-study area was de-signed to contribute to a stimulatingfeeling of change in environment forstudent interviews, waiting spaces, etc.This facility apparently does not exist ina typical rectangular office space, how-ever spacious, if the overall space hasthe sameness of decor and the samebusiness office furnishings throughout.

One of the design features of thisoffice unit (or module) is its flexibility,expandability, and convertibility. The

units could also be prefabricated. Theycan be combined in any number of repe-titions of the basic two-area unit andcan be built on one or both sides of acorridor. The units turn inside or out-side corners so that many basic buildingshapes are possible, Between each unitof offices, a section of two of the wallareas are sliding walls, floor to ceiling,which can be moved by the occupantsto provide access to the adjacent officespaces. When the sliding walls aremoved, they can be arranged to provideor restrict communication between dif-ferent combinations of spaces.

The canversion of the spaces can bemade by the occupants without majorconstruction to remove walls or doorsand without lighting, heating, and airconditioning changes.

Several of the many combinationspossible are suggested in later sketches.

Figure 7 shows the floor plan of thefull-scale model of several of these unitswhich were built and evaluated at ThePennsylvania State University.

The two-module office entered atDoor A illustrates the typical two-personoffice unit. The two sliding wail sectionsindicated by Cl thin black line are closedto the adjacent spaces. When thesesections are closed, conversation is notaudible through the walls.

Through Door A one enters the8' x 12' space closest to the corridor.This area with wall-to-wall carpeting or

4,444461111M10.....1

5

. $.04110111111112=

Arnal,,,--=Lici, ;.,'y =z-----;ara,_i-.----.-.---11

tti1 .....r,,,,,.......,i,i io ,,,,,' .....11-.11;.....,,,I, ,I` ,,,,,:,IIIIIIIIImdIIIIII Mei;1111111111111.4.0.. totimdill11111111111111,111111111111111Led

rammumior frommanummellIIIIIIN1111111M11101.11 'a Ii=11111111mlimiiiiimumni

111rInirlhosilv maisorummillIMIIIII.is........._ ..... a. a .. - ---.-----

Figure 6 -

Layout of the experimental two-man office

Figure 7 -

The floor plan ofmodel built andThe Pennsylvaniasity

the full-scaleevaluated atState Univer-

.11,04.10.11.1..r...,061.0 ..1411101.1=4101.111MIMMea.

- ;

6

ti

Figure 8 and Figure 9 -

Otiotr variations and combina-tions possible within the modelrooms by furniture rearrange-ment

Figure 10 -

Office units built on a double-loaded corridor

Figure 11 -

Classroom . laboratory - officebuilding,. Behrend Campus, ThePennsylvania State University

Figure 12 -

How the experimental facultyoffices might be used in anoffice building

C. OcArt - u L. r-1 tsyri

E.- E. 1412_ V. Mr, GA.N.ilpi_)s,rEl-iNzw LVis.t.t tn. STATE. ix tvalzi..-2 a y

.7_

a smaller rug is the reception-study-conference area, with an upholstereddavenport, chairs, lamps, and lamptables. The 8' x 12' space with the ex-terior window is the office desk areawith efficient working space for twopeople and with space for other chairsand desk-high file cabinets. This two-area space has 128 square feet morewall area than the same area enclosedin a rectangle. Liberal use is made ofcolor. In the model the wells werepainted beige and the desks brown.Bright color accents in red, yellow, orblue were provided by the chairs anddavenports (see Figure 8).

At Door B one enters a suite com-bination of five 8' x 12' areas which arecomposed of two typical two-personunits plus an 8' x 12' area provided toturn the exterior corner. This suite is

suggested as a combination that pro-vides for a faculty team that requires asecretary in the 8' x 12' area numbered1, which has a door to the corridor andis adequate to serve as a reception areaand secretarial work area. At the deskin area 1 the secretary has visual controlof the four other spaces numbered 2, 3,4, and 5. Space 2 with a separate doorto the corridor serves as a waiting-study-conference area for the suite and is usedby the two faculty members having theirdesks in area 3, as well as the facultyperson who has space 4 as a separateoffice. The sliding wall sections betweenrooms 1, 2, and 4 may be opened orclosed by the occupants at will to isolatethe areas and provide semi-privacy.Space 5, with ample wall area for shelv-ing, functions as a laboratory or confer-ence-seminar area and can be isolatedfrom space 1 by the sliding wall sectionwhich closes the entire entrance fromspace 1.

The two other spaces enteredthrough Door C illustrate the basic two-space unit, with sliding wall sectionsclosed to adjacent areas. In this unit thesame furniture used in the unit enteredthrough Door A has been rearranged toprovide a central carpeted reception-conference area from the door to the ex-terior wall but with the faculty deskareas in the alcoves to the right and leftof the central area.

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate variationsand combinations possible within the

7 model rooms by furniture rearrangement.

The 8' x 12' basic space areas canbe combined in any number of combina-tions from two spaces to a suite ofspacesin this case consisting of all ofthe nine areas built. In all of the com-binations traffic circulation and visualcommunication between spaces is pos-sible in a manner that cannot beachieved with uniform rectangularspaces having a unit depth from corri-dor- to outside viol! and with communicating doors between them.

Figure 10 illustrates how the officeunits can be built on a double-loadedcorridor. Units D, E, F, and 0 are builtaround an inside corner with windowsfacing cm interior garden court. Similaroffices on the other side of the corridorhave their window walls on the externalbuilding facades. Unit D suggests athree-space area in which two facultymembers have desk areas in one module,use a second module as a drafting roomor work room, and have a third as a stu-

dent conference-reception-lounge. Unit

E is a variation of the two-person unit.Unit F suggests how three areas mightserve as a departmental office library.Unit G is one module used as a generalfile room. It could also be included asa fourth space to enlarge Unit F. Othercombinations of spaces are possible andmay suggest themselves to faculty mem-bers faced with the need for a solutionto their own office space problems.

The corridors, if provided at inter-vals with wall surfaces of tack boardmaterial and with the mounting chan-nels for bracketed shelving, could pro-vide for exhibits of faculty art work ordisplays of interest to other faculty mem-bers or students. In this way with properdisplay lighting the corridors could be anattractive and interesting part of thefaculty office area rather than a draband depressing traffic tunnel.

These offices can be built in a simplerectangular building area where only alimited number of offices are required,such as may be the case in many of thesmaller public school or college build-ings. At the Behrend Campus of ThePennsylvania State University at Erie,Pennsylvania, the new one-story class-room and laboratory building being con-structed for occupancy in 1962 incorpo-rates a number of these offices in anoffice area. The floor plan of the build-ing is shown in Figure 11.

ra

Figure 12 indiccitss how a largenumber of these offices could be incor-porated into a multi-storied office build-ing with other facilities.

The ground floor might contain anynecessary private administrative officesof a conventional type along with acentral lobby, reception area, and cen-tral secretarial pool area. Conferencerooms of required size, seminar andwork rooms, mail rooms, storage, stairs,and toilet facilities can be desigoed tofit into a plan that uses these modularoffices.

Since a faculty member's office workoccupies only a part of his workday, heis often without secretarial assistancebecause full-time assistance cannot bejustified and part-time workers ore notreadily available. The usual solution isto provide a small full-time secretarialgroup to assist a large number of facultypeople. When the number of facuitymembers with offices in a single buildingis large enough, as suggested in Figure12, it is often economically feasible to pro-

Figure 13 -

Locations from which the photo-graphs were taken

Figure 14 -

A corner room arranged forlaboratory work

vide central automatic dictation equip-ment one. telephone devices which makeeach faculty office teiepho:le a dictationmachine connected to a number of dic-tation recorders located in the area ofthe secretarial pool. A few girls withthis type of equipment can serve as sec-retary-typists to a large number of fac-ulty members, in addition to acting astheir telephone answering service andI Jceptionist if the installation is properlyWru$uI u.

The basic unit contains a high de-gree of built-in flexibility. The purposeis to anticipate the requirements of thewide variety of individuals who will oc-cupy this type of office and make pro-vision for these requirements without thenecessity of incurring expensive and in-convenient construction work. Althoughthe unit was planned as a two-man unit,there is no reason, of course, why a givenunit could not be used by one person,where such an arrangement can be.justified.

OFFICEA

B

8

LABORATORY

LOFFICE

C

Th e end walls of each space andthe portion of the side wall formed bythe overlap of the spaces (exclusive ofthe movable walls) are equipped withadjustable shelf strips spaced approxi-mately two feet on center. This providesthirty-two lineal feet of wall space thusequipped. In addition, the two endwalls ()f the work area have, as thefinish wall material, a perforated hard-board providing for a large number ofpossible uses by the individual occupant.

In a building which would incorpo-rate this type of faculty office, storagerooms would be provided at central loca-tions, and these would contain shelfbrackets and shelving in a variety ofwidths and lengths. These storage roomswould also carry a stock of prefabri-cated items such as letter trays, maga-zine rc cks, and simple sliding door stor-age cabinets, all of which would mounton either the adjustable shelf strips orthe pe orated wail by the simple inser-tion of the proper hanging device. Thiswould allow the occupants of the officesto ach eve an almost endless number ofvariations to suit the need and use ofeach office at any particular time. TheinstallItion of these brackets and hang-ing &vices is simple and can be doneby the occupant without the delay or ex-pense of obtaining skilled labor.

The end walls of the work area andthe portion of the wall containing thesliding sections (the entire; z-shaped walldividing the basic units) ere ideallysuited for prefabrication. Only twounits are required for the entire officearea, a solid area wall section and asliding wall-pocket section. The two slid-ing wall sections shown on the plan areof thy: same size and construction, theonly lifference being the locking hard-ware which would be installed after theunits are in place.

coat space is provided by a simpleprefabricated shelf and hook strip whichis installed on the wall adjacent to theentry door from the corridor and soplaced that it is concealed behind thedoor when open. This provides an outof tho way location, yet convenient to theentry, and does away with an awkwardpiece of movable furniture.

Lighting is provided by recessedceiling fluorescent fixtures in each sectionof th basic unit. These lights would be

9 controlled by switches at the room en-

trance. Receptacles are provided on theexterior building wall and on the corri-dor wall. Receptacles would not beplaced on the prefabricated end wallsof the spaces in order that the construc-tion of these units be kept as simple aspossible. Double-celled under-floor ductwould be run through each space of thebasic unit approximately in the center ofthe space. This double-cell duct providesfor electric and telephone service andcan be tapped where an electric or tele-phone outlet is required.

Heating and/or cooling can be ac-commodated in several ways, depend-ing on 1.;:Jilding location and struc-tural system. The simplest method ofheating would be to install either a freestanding or recessed convector under thewindow on the outside wall.

The experience with the full-sizemock-up indicates that a seven-foot ceil-ing height is adequate in the corridor.This allows at least one foot over corri-dor ceilings in which air conditioningducts could be heated with dischargethrough the office wall over the entrancedoor. This space over the corridor wouldalso accommodate a double duct systemwith both heated and cooled air beingblended at the outlet and circulated intothe room as required by the thermostat.The double duct type system could alsobe used to advantage with a cellularsteel floor similar to the Rcbert3on Q-Floor. This system would introduce thetempered air at the outside wall underthe window. Any of these systems whichrequire the movement of air would usethe corridor as a return air plenum.

Plumbing would be provided onlyat toilets and in uame work rooms, butthese would be stacked from story tostory in the interest cf economy.

This office concept will work wellwith several types of building construc-tion. The basic construction could be areinforced concrete frame with a struc-tural concrete floor, a steel frame withconcrete floor, or a steel frame with acellular steel structural floor.

The building module is such thatcolumns may be placed on twelve-footor twenty-four foot spacings on thelength of the building depending on thesubsurface conditions. These conditionswould also determine whether columnswould be placed on either or both sidesof the corridor.

It is proposed that the exterior wallbe constructed of masonry brick facingwith a concrete block back-up formingthe interior finish wall. If a convector isused as the means of heating, an insu-lated metal panel under the window willprovide space to recess the convector andobtain a flush inside wall. Curtain wallconstruction would also be satisfactorywith thic nffira Hein_

The corridor walls would be con-crete block with a painted finish. All in-terior spacF, divisions on either side ofthe corridor would be obtained by useof the prefabricated wall units men-tioned previously.

We have attempted in this officesolution to provide not only an efficient,compact, and comfortable office but alsoone which can be constructed at a rea-sonable cost.

The greatest saving in cost will beeffected by the repetition of units. Thissaving will be directly related to thenumber of units constructed. This repeti-

10 Figure 15 - Operation of the sliding wall sections

tion will be reflected in the buildingstructure where each bay will be thesame and in the prefabricated wallunits, exterior windows, heating units,etc.

Additional cost savings will resultfrom using simple and inexpensive finishmaterials; for example, painted concreteblock for the fixed walls.

The use of lew ceiling heights willalso have a favorable effect on the cost.A four-story office building using thisplan and retaining the eight-foot ceilingheight can be constructed in the volumenormally required for a three-story aca-demic building.

In a faculty office building con-structed in this manner, cost studies willindicate that, due to the greater concen-tration of construction materials per unitof volume, square foot or cubic foot costsof the structure will be higher than onecontaining average size private offices.However, the unit cost per faculty mem-ber accommodated and the total cost ofthe building will be less for the follow-ing reasons:

1. There is less total office volumeand area per faculty memberaccommodated.

2. There is less corridor circulationarea required per unit.

3. The reduction of total buildingarea and volume will resultin corcespond;ncly less costlyplumbing, heating, air condi-tioning, and electrical system in-stallation costs.

The building, for the same reasonof reduced area and volume, will havelower annual operating and mainte-nance costs. It naturally follows that anybuilding smaller in area and volumewill cost less to build, operate, and main-tain than a similar but larger building.In the case of an office building of thetype suggested, it is believed that thesesavings are made not by the basic re-duction of the office area and volumeper se but more properly by the increasedutilization of the area provided, whichmakes possible the reduction of total size.

The photographs (Figures 14 through19) illustrate the interiors of the full-scalemodel offices as They were built, fur-nished, and used. Figure 13 indicates bynumbers in triangles the position of thecamera when the photograph indentifiedby the same number was taken.

-77="'"4""m"NtZ=Zr.:....4

11

"1. x...

moor

,.4%,="i.,^ ,

,

'-'1,79i ,.. : . -

,11,' -4.--,..-..e

44, .

___---...2

Figure 16 - A two-person work area (Office A)

Figure 17 A reception interview area (Office A)

...,i%,,oi:..,7 ,...., , r Ir"..""."4.),-"-qt` > , :,,,t,"`s::'t, .,.:4::.;`,..s

,,

s',',,,,,-:'...7

zyg7.7:;-,,pro..- -44,-,,, vt!, ,Stos

. ,-,4'. sl,,,,,,-,-, 1 '4' 'M47 , .; '-.0.:.

t t

12

v

Figure 18 - An alternative arrangement of the interview area

Figure 19 - An arrangement for a larger reception area

;

We. r

/

IV EVALUATION

Objectives

The general purpose of the researchphase of this study was to evaluate theexperimental structures as two-man fac-ulty offices in terms of their acceptabilityto faculty members and their operationaleffectiveness.

The original plan was to makemodifications to the mock-up on thebasis of enntinue

the evaluation. However, shortage offunds made it impossible to carry outsuch structural modifications.

Procedures

Two different procedureslowed in carrying out the ev

(1) Faculty membersto inspect the mto indicate theievaluation sdix 1).

were fol-aluations:

were inviteddel offices and

r reactions on anheet (see Appen-

(2) Faculty members from two dif-ferent departments were invitedto occupy the offices for a se-mester. These individualt, wereinterviewed from time to timeand their reactions were noted(see Appendix 2).

Results

A. Reactions of Visiting Faculty Members

The experimental faculty officeswere constructed within what was for-merly a large dining hall centrally lo-cated on The Pennsylvania State Univer-sity campus. Construction was under-taken during the summer and early fallof 1960.

As soon as the offices were com-pleted a number of faculty memberswere invited to visit them. The membersof this initial group were asked to statetheir reactions on an open-ended ques-tionnaire. The evaluation sheet was de-veloped on the basis of this initial study.

Subsequently several open houseswere scheduled. Faculty members at-tending the Faculty Luncheon Club wereinvited first. Later personal invitationswere extended to members of the ad-ministration, deans, department heads,and to individual faculty members rep-resenting such areas as mathematics,speech, psychology, home economics, ro-mance languages, physics, education,

13 economics, engineering, journalism, zo-

ology, continuing education, and libraryscience. In other words, efforts weremade to secure a cross section of faculty

members.Following these invitational open

houses a general invitation to inspect thefacility was published in the "FacultyBulletin." A general invitation was alsoforwarded to each department on thecampus.

The procedure adopted at each openhouse was to welcome the visitors with abrief orientation speech about the pro-ject and its purpose (given by W. H.Wiegand, either in person or recorded ontape). The visitors then viewed a modelof the facility and a display of sketchesindicating possible layouts. They werethen invited to walk through the modeloffices at their leisure and to ask ques-tions of the staff. immediately after theinspection each visitor was invited to fillout the evaluation sheet.

In spite of widespread personalinvitations only about 60 faculty mem-bers actually visited the facility, andmany of these did not fill out the ques-tionnaires. In total, 36 questionnaireswere satisfactorily completed.

It is difficult to say what the reasonwas for this unexpectedly small numberof visitors. It may have been due to alack of interest or, perhaps more likely,to the fact that most people are extremelybusy and difficult to divert from their sethabit patterns and other commitments.

Of those completing the evaluationform, 50% held the rank of associateprofessor or above, and 50% were assist-ant professors or below. Most of the pro-fessors and associate professors hadoffices in their homes as well as at theUniversity. In most cases those in thelower faculty ranks did not have officesin their homes and spent much moreworking time in their university officesthan did those in the higher ranks.

The average time spent by the re-spondents in their university offices was28 hours per week, with a range from5 to 65 hours.

These faculty members use their of-fices for the following purposes:

Proportion ofTotal UsesMentioned

Purpose for whichoffice is used

Counseling students

Conference withcolleagues

19%

16%

.2 situ.

14

General writing

Preparation ofinstruction

Research

General reading

Committee meetings

Administrative

13%

100%

For this group the average numberof occupants assigned to a university of-fice was 3.16 (range 1-20). The averageoffice space available for each personwas 93 square feet.

Many of the faculty members whoinspected the new faculty office mock-upwork in 8' x 4' office cubicles built intoformer classrooms. These cubicles are notsoundproof. Attitudes toward this kindof "temporary" office were generallynegative and may have influenced thereactions of these people town ds therr'c± -up cI'fice. which they were askedto evaluate.

The responses to individual vari-ables in the offices were as follows:

1. Lighting - generally approved.

2. Shelving - approved by lower-ranking faculty members, butconsidered insufficient in size bysome department heads and pro-fessors.

3. Privacy - considered adequateby faculty members who alreadyshare office space; considered in-adequate by department headsand professors who have privateoffices.

4. Furnishings - well liked.

5. Color schemes - approved.

6. Provision of a conference orwaiting room area in each of-fice - very well liked.

7. Space - considered excellentspace utilization but too small.

8. Preference for office layout A orC (see Figure 7) - 83% of the ob-servers preferred the layout ofOffice C with desks and workareas at opposite ends of the off-set rectangles separated by theconference or waiting aria.

General observations: Generally the ob-servers considered the offices to be toosmall even though many of them haveless space in large offices which theyshare v !th others.

The design as a whole was consid-ered to offer greater privacy, with thetwo-man occupancy objective in mind,than the situation to which most of theobservers are new firructnrnAd-

Many of the observers describedthe ideal solution to the office problemas a large private office for each personwith an adjacent waiting room andpersonal secretary. They did not seri-ously believe that such provisions couldbe financed or that the need would com-pletely justify the expenditure.

Several people were interested inpossible designs of cell-like private of-fices, about 10' x 10' in area, equippedwith files and with a nearby secretarialpool.

Many of the observers agreed that,for discussion and social reasons, theywould probably prefer the flexible two-area, two-man office arrangement to aone-man private office. Faculty mem-bers who work closely in educational orresearch programs felt that the designunder study would facilitate this kind ofwork.

Some professors found the officesideally suited for one teaching professorwith a graduate assistant (or secretary),and others visualized the possibilities ofscheduled uses of a unit in such a man-ner as to provide occupancy by one fac-ulty member at a time.

A major problem was again indi-catedthat of matching faculty rankand needs with office sizes, furnishings,and number ot occupants. An opera-tional plan is 7.eeded which would bemore equitable and functional than exist -;ng procedures. Note: It is suggestedthat a basis could be established by ananalysis of uses, kinds, and amounts,which would permit office assignments interms of principles of utility rather thanrank. This procedure would violate, how-ever, the system which provides officesas status symbols and rewards forachievement.

In the present study it was foundthat there is a negative correlation of.72 between faculty rank and amount

of time spent in the university office.That is, associate and full professors tendto spend less time in their university of-fices than assistant professors and in-structors.

The possibility exists that the ex-perimental office design under study hasgreater possibilities for flexibility andvariability in use than the offices gener-ally occupied by faculty members. Thesliding doors and number of relativelysecluded work areas tend to personalizethe offices. In this design it is also pos-sible for the faculty member to individ-ualize his work area by variety in color,furnishings, and pictures and by variedarrangements of furniture within thespace. Such variations between deskareas and conference areas and easilyachieved variations in decor can reducethe feeling of being "institutionalized."

In summary it can be said that mostof tho observers would prefer privateoffices even if small, but if two-man of-fices are the minimum that would beeconomically feasible, then the new de-sign is very acceptable and has manydesirable features in furnishings andflexibility of use.

B. Evaluation by Occupants

It was believed that the most usefuland dependable evaluation of the newoffice design would result from its occu-pancy by a group of faculty membersfor a fairly long period of time. Accord-ingly, the Departments of Speech andSlavic Languages, which were pressedfor office space, accepted the opportunityto have faculty members work in the ex-perimental offices for a semester (16weeks).

Eight faculty members moved intothe offices in January 1961. The groupincluded an associate professor, two as-sistant professors, four instructors, andone graduate assistant. All of these in-dividuals had previously occupied multi-ple-person offices in converted class-rooms.

General reactions: The occupantsgenerally agreed that in comparisonwith their previous offices the experi-mental offices offered:

15

1. Greater mobility and flexibility.

2. Greater privacy.

3. Better facilities for student-pro-fessor conferences.

4. Greater opportunity for smallgroup conferences.

5. More attractive working environ-man

6. Adequate book shelves and filespace.

7. Excellent waiting-conferencespace.

The principal complaint related tothe inadequacy of the ventilation system.Ideally, these offices would be air-condi-tioned. Funds did not permit installationof air conditioning in the mock-up. In-stead a suction fan operating throughducts was used. This proved to be inade-:,:uate.

In general most of the occupantswould have liked more space and bettersoundproofing. All agreed, however,that the new design was a great im-provement over their existing multiple-occupancy offices.

Individual reactions to the offices bytheir occupants are given in Appendix 2.

It should be noted that the adversecomments concerning ventilation, win-dows, and sound travel were due en-tirely to the temporary type of construc-tion used in building the mock-up. Thiswould not be the case in actual con-struction.

The model rooms were built insidea large room which itself did not haveadequate ventilation. The rooms hadsimulated windows of frosted glass in-stead of actual operable windows in anexterior wall. The walls generally wereplasterboard mounted on one side ofwood studs instead of being masonry.Some of the walls had plasterboard onboth sides of the studs.

Ceilings were 1/2" cane-fibre tilemounted on the bottom of wood ceilingjoists with nothing above to preventsound travel from one space to another.

Because of faculty requests, themodel rooms will continue to be used asoffices until the building they are in is re-modeled at some future date.

APPENDIX I

A NEW CONCEPT IN FACULTY OFFICESEVALUATION SHEET

The Educational Facilities Labora-tories has made it possible to constructfull-scale models of these faculty offices.The principal reason for building themwas to provide faculty members with theopportunity to see, use, and evaluate

them in terms of their acceptability, ap-propriateness, and utility. Informationfrom you is needed before these newkinds of offices are recommended to col-leges and universities and actually builtinto permanent structures. Therefore,please give us true reactions, objectivejudgments, and clear suggestions.

Information for data classification:

Department Academic Rank

Position Title

Information on your present office:

Approximate Size . Building

Floor Number of Occuponts

Estimated time per week during which you work in your office

Do you have an office at home?

How your office is used - check appropriate functions:

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

Research

Committee Meetings

Preparation of Instruction .........

Counseling Students

Conferences with Faculty Colleagues ..

General Reading .. .... .. .. Writing

Others:

State three of your most favorable reactions to the office models.

1.

2.

3.

State three of your most unfavorable reactions:

1.

2.

3.

Assuming that you would occupy a place in offices like these, what changes would yourecommend to make them more suitable for you and your kinds of work.

If you were one of tv . people in a two-person office, which arrangement would youprefer?

1. Two desks in one area with sitting room near corridor as in Room A

2. Desk areas separated in different areas with sitting room betweenas in Room C

1PPENDIX H

REACTIONS OF FACULTY MEMBERS

A. Comments by Faculty Members inOccupancy

Associate Professor A

Original Office: High ceiling room sharedwith three others.Location: Office C in experimental mode!

Re...-rks:

Positive

Space design is good; has many flexiblepossibilities. Superior to ordinary two-man office, greater comfort. Carpets

were a good idea. Sliding doors makethe design quite mobile.

Negative

Can't separate the fixtures from thespace; evaluation of the design is coloredby the type of furniture. Offices offermore comfort than utility. Lack of pri-vacy. Glass door would have been better.Ventilation very poor. Offices should beslightly larger in order to expand "sittingarea" so that groups of students can sitwithout hitting each other's feet. Cheapconstruction. Outside wall should becompletely glass.

Assistant Professor B

Original Office: Converted classroom withpartitions shared with 10 others.Location: Office C in experimental model

Remarks:

Positive

I like two-man office rather than the con-verted classroom id-. y. The lounge areaidea is very good. There seems to beample space even for a full professor.The bookshelves are goodexpand-able. Ideal for graduate assistants andvisiting students. More students havecome in than in old crowded offices andthey feel more like chatting. They thinkit's wonderful. Frequency of student-teacher communication has increased.The design is good. Much better than myformer cubicle. Noise level is reduced.Very easy to work ineasy for students.

Negative

Insufficient storage space and poor venti-lation. More light would be desirable.

Assistant Professor C

Instructor D

Original Office: Converted classroom withpartitions shared with eight other people.Location: Office A in experimental model.

Remarks:

Positive

We !:l, e04 it Currnunriings "'aro rrindurivato pleasant conversation. You can seemore than one student at a time. Thewaiting room idea is very good. Furni-ture, pastel colors, and carpeting wereespecially nice. Students seemed to likethe offices very much. Many studentsmentioned how nice the offices were.The two-man office has sufficient spacefor two men with interlacing office hours.The ceiling height was o.k. We liked theprivacy.

Negative

The rooms were not soundproof. Youcould hear everything in the next room.One sometimes got a feeling of claustro-phobia. Ventilation was very poor.Often the rooms were over 80° andstuffy. The material seemed very cheap.Accordion door (Room 4) functioned verypoorly. Hall ceiling too lowhall toosmall.

Instructor E

Original Office: Converted classroom withpartitions shared with 10 others.Location: Office B in experimental model.

Remarks:

Positive

A lot better than we had beforecom-pletely better. Much more freedom forstudents; relaxing, attractive surround-ings. Homier. Design is convenient.Nonoverlapping office hours make thetwo-man office very usable. There wasgreater privacy working with students.Language lab in conference room excel-lent. More students came voluntarilyjust dropped in. Students favorably im-pressedfirst comfortable place to comeand sit down. Can also find privacy fordiscussing problemsbull sessions, etc.Can handle two students at a time.Noise level much lower; can do yokework without self-conscious feelings.

Storage space adequate. Bookshelvesfine. Color arrangements good andnecessary.

Negative

Not airy. Ventilation very bad. Wouldlike more privacy. Could always hearsonleone else. Wouldn't like- "cell" set-up though. Two people enough. Can'tmove the sliding partitions easily enough.Students get claustrophobia in confer-ence room. Students afraid that youcan't get the sliding partitions openagain. Afraid to be locked in. Real win-dows would help. Want some naturallight. Would like some practice rooms(half-size) for language laboratory.

Instructor F

Original Office: converted classroom withpartitions shared with 10 others.Location: Office B in experimental model.

Remarks:

Positive

Liked most the space for books andpapers. Language lab possible and ex-cellent; fitted in nicely. Good for confer-ences; can get privacy. Very cheerful towork in. Colorful. Furniture very com-fortable. Desk and cupboard space good.Design good; efficient. Space good.

Negative

Very minor things. Placement of black-board so I can write while I talk. Win-dows should be real. Rest rooms non-existent in area. Ventilation improvedwith floor fans. Some lounge areassuperfluous. Can't have private confer-ences while students are waiting. Ac-cordion partition (Room 4) is u.--e!ess.

Soundproofing not too good.

B. Comments by Visiting Faculty Mem-bers

The design itself appealed to mostvisitors. Some of the favorable com-ments were as follows:

... informal attractive waitingrooms conducive to improvedfaculty and student morale

... pleasant areas for informal con-ferences

... waiting room for students excel-lent

... the layout will tend to buildgreater cooperation among thestaff

... more space than at present, withfewer occupants

... sliding panels might be a goodidea

... proximity of books good

... over-all idea is a step in theright direction

... good utilization of space. < . charming, interesting atmo-

sphere

... good traffic control

... adaptable in special arrange-ments to meet needs of a vari-ety of people's tastes.

... amount of space is good

Room C arrangement was preferred by84% of the visitors (see Figure 7).

Unfavorable reactions, other thanto furniture and construction materials,were as follows:

... secretary too far away... waste of space in waiting room

conference room too small forconferences

... increase space by one-third

. . prefer single-man office

ceilings too low. not enough window area

lack of privacystudents waiting in officespace for files too limited

... designed for social rather thanintellectual purposes