Building Design V’s User Needs

The question of ‘Building Design’ and ‘Users Needs’ is an interesting one raised this morning in an article titled ‘Building Designers Should Pay More Heed to What Users Need’, published by @officeinsight and written by the excellent @simonheath1. I may not agree entirely with the concluding sentiments which characterise and castigate ‘Designers’ generically as one homogenous mass of ego maniacs who don’t listen, but I value the perspective given and relish the opportunity to respond in humble defence of ‘Designers’, and to shed a little light upon the complex realities at play in ‘Building Design’ (Commercial Offices). My points may be predictably obvious to some readers, but not others. I’m not entirely sure who my audience is at this point.

ChessWith the notable exception of new build design schemes for a single occupier/client, in reality Architects of office buildings will seldom if ever meet the final occupiers or tenants. Strange but true. Their brief is provided by the likes of Developers, Landlords or Pension Funds and communicated through intermediaries. Such as ‘Project Managers’ and ‘Cost Consultants’, who will equally have their own professional duties and even baggage to bring to the table. The architectural brief is indeed a complex one which has many restrictions. Including for example, Site Envelope, Local Authority Regulations, Sustainability and Emissions, Rights to Light, Traffic, Egress, Archeology, English Heritage, Utilities and Waste Infrastructure. The list goes on and is appreciably long.

A headline architectural brief may be as simple as ‘Design an office building that will attract occupiers from multiple market sectors, and maximise ‘Net Lettable Area’ with a net to gross ratio of at least 80%, and which will achieve a BREEAM Excellent Rating’. The location of the site will be significant in who is likely to occupy, and what yield on investment is likely over time. Prevailing property rents are of course a significant factor in what Architectural solution is possible in any given location. In London for instance you wouldn’t view the West End, City or Midtown in the same way as the Paddington Basin, Canary Wharf or an out of town Business Park. As a guide, the cost of constructing a new air conditioned office in a city centre location to Cat A, with raised floors, suspended ceilings, carpets, lighting and power but excluding Cat B (Tenant Brief) of say 12 floors will typically range from a low of £1,200 to a high of £2,200 per Sq M. One could half the costs if constructing in an out of town business park location. Data from ‘International Construction Cost Survey, June 2011’ published by Gardiner & Theobald.

Clearly ‘Building Design’ (Construction & Fitout) is an expensive exercise, and maximising return on investment in both Land & Construction, with a good rental yield over the building lifecycle is not going to go away. Commercial office architecture is always going to be the result of a number of compromises, given the stack of necessary restrictions placed upon Architects. That’s not to say the results are regularly a fudge or a failure in any sense. Architects are increasingly providing stunning new sustainable office buildings, which are a joy to behold and use, and which provide a long term return on investment. Some may arguably be a compromise too far and are designed at the expense of occupier wellbeing, and consequent productivity, profitability, and organisational success. Although I would contend this is very rare these days, and that most amateur Architectural critics are restricted to whether a building looks good in it’s own right, and whether it blends into it’s environment. Any failure in this aesthetic sense is arguably a matter of subjectivity and personal taste. The architect more often than not will notably be working to a generic institutional brief, and will bring personal style and influences to bear on the building design. In a sense solutions can be sculptural, and will doubtless be open to aesthetic debate. Although I’m pretty sure boring is still more fashionable than it ought to be.

The challenge and role of the ‘designer’, a term more generically used for ‘Interior Designer’ in this context, is quite different from the Architect. The interior brief (Cat B) derives from the occupier/tenant, as opposed to an institutional investor. The Cat B tenant specific brief on fitout costs will typically range from around £320 per Sq M (£30 per Sq. Ft.) up to around £1,000 Per Sq M (£90 per Sq. Ft.). Excluding Furniture and ICT budget. Obviously each tenant and market sector will have its unique operational needs and budget to provide further challenges to the design team. Although it should be acknowledged that a generous budget is certainly no determinate of a successful design. No matter what metrics or emotive anecdotes are employed.

There are two types of ‘Interior Designer’ (or Architect) operating in the world today, good ones and bad ones. The good designers never impose a generic ‘vanilla’ solution. A good Interior Designer will have a team that includes those experienced in organizational brief development, sometimes these professionals will be specialist ‘Workplace Consultants’, offering the client an extensive brief development and consultation stage in the project. This stage is sometimes termed as ‘Pre-Design’. This will determine in strategic terms, the design parameters for any specific organisation. Such as who, where, what, why, when and how? It is the operational and functional basis for the design before considering colour, materials, fixtures and fittings. The ‘Pre-Design’ consultation will also identify the degree of ‘Flexible’ or ‘Agile’ working to be employed, and what effect this will have on the scheme.

A good workplace designer will seek to involve as many people as possible in the design briefing, for the logical reason that casting a wide net will arguably lead to a finished scheme that will account for all needs and perspectives. Plus the act of consultation itself is a significant contributory factor in how stakeholders feel about the entire process. Nobody likes to be ignored, even someone who doesn’t actually have a point of view to contribute, its still good sense to ask what thoughts they may have. The technology now exists in social media to canvas opinions widely and almost instantaneously. Although, I think we’ve yet to see a filtering #hashtag on twitter as part of a design briefing exercise. It’s not that ubiquitous yet and it may have confidentiality implications, but one day soon perhaps. Maybe it won’t be long before we see the first workplace design brief conducted at least in part on ‘Facebook’, using not just language to communicate ideas, but also product/furniture/material/colour images, 3d walkthroughs and artists’ visuals. Why not I say?

On the pragmatic side, the perennial problem with planning a new workspace, whether in a refurbishment or relocation is that it will need inbuilt growth potential, and inherent flexibility for the organisation. After all, a major chunk of capital is being invested in what is when all said and done, a balance sheet overhead. It may well be a cradle of burgeoning talent and source of the worlds next great idea or product, but it’s still an overhead. So getting a return on investment is paramount. The benefits provided by an efficient occupancy solution allow for reinvestment in the organisation, and that means jobs and growth. This often sadly includes squeezing the space till the pips squeak, perhaps not on ‘Day one’ to use the design vernacular, but it usually happens eventually. It’s a costly and disruptive scenario when bursting at the seams two or three years into a new lease. Any marginal expansion will likely not justify an overspill space with all that it entails, but if space can’t be found in existing premises, organisations will suffer, with perhaps lost revenue, limited markets and initiatives, dips in morale and perhaps a loss of good people to the competition. It’s an unwelcome downward spiral. A considered compromise is always struck between cost of fitout, long-term occupancy and aspirations of occupants, and this must be gauged against the benefits to the organisation as a whole.

On a related point, the jury is currently out as to whether Yahoo! will lose staff having announced last week the removal of all ‘Flexible’ working rights commencing June 2013. They’ll certainly need more space if they plan to have everyone in the office at all times. To some observers that’s the proverbial ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’. I digress.

In-built flexibility and growth capacity is always possible on ‘Day one’ but it does require compromise at a cost, either financially or in terms of space allocation, and arguably to functionality, wellbeing and productivity. Equally, flexibility in every sense of the word is obviously one of the foundations of any business model and workspaces or work patterns (Agile Working) ought to facilitate a range of adaptions to meet unforeseen demands and necessary changes. Growth is an aspiration, if not a clearly defined business objective, but it would be foolish to plan for significant organisational growth in new premises over a short timescale. Flexible and shorter leases can play an important role in a buyers market. Some tenants may be in a position to take on additional floors in a building and sub-let on a short lease, until the space is needed. Most occupiers will seldom be in that situation however, so you need to be sure of the office space suitability to meet all your occupancy criteria, and key amongst these is that you fit, now and for the foreseeable future.

Many occupiers understandably think that their situation, constraints and dare we say boardroom politics are unique. An experienced ‘Workplace Consultant’ or ‘Interior Designer’ will have had the privilege and benefit of working with many organisations in different markets, and this has allowed them to see what often the organisation itself cannot see. This is not blind arrogance, but a common sense perspective that when we step outside a scene, or situation, we can view circumstances more objectively, unencumbered by historical baggage and internal politics. Good design consultants are conscious of the different agendas at play in putting together an effective and inspiring workplace brief (Strategy/Plan). The disparate objectives and aspirations of the executive, workforce and facilities team will be noted naturally, but there will be inevitable compromise. The 19th century Prussian general Helmuth Von Moltke stated, “Strategy is a system of expedients”, and ‘No plan survives contact with the enemy”.

In both Architecture and Interior Design, the brief required to facilitate a beautiful functioning office in order to accommodate any organisation, is indeed an inevitable but well considered compromise, but it is emphatically a well-considered plan. Inspired by Helmuth Von Moltke, I would say a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. ‘Building Designers’ do pay significant attention to ‘Users Needs’, but we must recognise that to achieve some critical project imperatives set down by parties beyond our control we must compromise. Without compromise nothing would ever get done. Where would you like to compromise?

Is the Pope a Catholic? New Research

In a ‘collaborative’ effort between workplace consultants, academics and their recent clients in London. It’s been announced today that a new peer reviewed study has been completed with a significant test group across multiple market sectors to determine a definitive answer to this important and often misunderstood question.

If the pope was indeed a Catholic, could such a bold assertion really be stated with certainty? Has the new research, field studies and carefully recorded observations solved this vexing metaphysical question once and for all? Many attempts have been made in the past to ask this most obvious of questions, to determine whether or not the pope was indeed a ‘Catholic’, and although many of us naively took it at face value that he was, some sceptics in the workplace consulting field felt that if such a statement were to be believed and have any wider credibility, it would need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and illustrated with statistical results.

CatholicThe first observation was that the statement was in English and that ‘Ist der Papst katholisch’, and ’es el papa católico’ were perhaps true and with similar meaning but that misunderstandings could arise out of errors in translation, especially from non European, Asiatic or pictorial languages. Nobody in the research team really understood 是一所天主教的?

The definition of the word ‘is’ was the next challenge. The 3rd person singular present of ‘be’ (Verb). A question relating to the state of being. The team were agreed on the first word in the question and its relationship to the state of being and uniqueness of the noun ‘Pope’. The word ‘The’ was agreed fairly early on in the project to refer to a person, place or thing that is unique. The ‘Pope’ being defined and understood to mean ‘Head of the Roman Catholic Church’.

The researchers discovered that the adjective ‘a’ could denote a quantity of a thing used with units of measurement, as well as referring to something or someone for the first time in a text or conversation. So one could reasonably say in mathematical terms that 1x Pope = ‘a’ Pope. Any more and one would have to use numerical language and of course the plural of Pope is ‘Popes’. Coincidentally a topical dilemma with which the Vatican is currently grappling. The noun ‘Catholic’ was readily agreed to mean a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and refers to specific traditions in Christian churches in theology, doctrine, liturgy, ethics and spirituality.

The research team then focused their efforts on two key facts, namely that ‘The Pope’ was indeed a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and secondly that as head of the Roman Catholic Church, he was by all reasonable observations deemed to be a practicing ‘Catholic’. Despite his unexpected resignation during the observation period. The team concluded after much analysis and debate that the pope is indeed a Catholic.

The research team are currently looking for sponsorship from the workplace/occupier community into the equally vexing question of bears activities in woods.

Fresh Red Herrings

‘Creativity’ & ‘Collaboration’ or to use my own dim witted term ‘Getting stuff done’, would appear to be a new concept being rolled out in seminars by a ubiquitous American furniture manufacturer. I guess sometimes whoever has the biggest marketing budget sets the agenda and gets the loudest voice. “Oh please help us create and collaborate. How is it done? How do I create something, If only someone would collaborate with me, I could create something”…. “Don’t worry madam. Stand back everyone! I’m about to create something”.

Sherlock Holmes-2Perhaps it’s just that the marketing department of a company that makes furniture deemed it sufficiently fluffy and topical a subject to draw in an audience. So they commissioned others wiser than themselves to research the topics, and repackaged them into the branded voice of authority, for easy consumption by customers. Nothing wrong with that I would add, but it does seem a great shame to see the intellectual prowess of others being bought and sold as important research driven by market demand. When in reality it’s research driven by a need to have something to say that’s vaguely related to buying new furniture.

I know this is controversial, but It may not help occupiers to have the agenda on workplace occupancy strategy set by folks who sell furniture. ‘Getting stuff done’ is undoubtedly very important but being pseudo academic about it and calling it ‘Creativity’ and ‘Collaboration’ is not actually groundbreaking. It may help promote adjustable seating to a wider audience, but lets not pretend that in the midst of the worst economy in living memory we need to promote anything less than practical solutions that help now, not sometime in an abstract future where ones penchant for creativity is acknowledged and supported by ones enlightened colleagues.

Super Special Magic Pixie Dust

JohnMcNeece-AlistairFletcherWay back in 1979 when I was a mere 14 years old, my father (On the left) an Interior Designer urged me to gain early experience of the real world, by working in his commercial studio during the school summer holidays. For two months in ‘79 I worked a five-day week as an apprentice Interior Designer (More a tea boy initially). I did the same thing in the summer of 1980 and 1981. In 1982 at 17 following completion of my ‘Ordinary’ and ‘Higher’ grade exams (Glasgow, Scotland). I was ushered into working full time as a junior Interior Designer in my fathers rapidly growing studio.

I worked a 40-hour week as a junior and attended day release classes at the ‘Glasgow School of Art’ Interior Design department, where both my father and mother studied in the 1950’s. During this period through ‘82- ‘83 I was released every Thursday to study Design with the 2nd year students. Also during the winter of ‘82 I attended evening classes in life drawing at ‘The Glasgow School of Art’. So by 1984 when I began four years full time study of Interior Design at ‘The Glasgow College of Building & Printing’ I had in a very real sense already been working commercially over a five-year period. It’s staggering when I think back on it. I was only 19. Whilst still at college I even worked in my fathers Glasgow studio in the summer of ’85 and his London studio in the summer of ’86.

Adrian-Watercolour-1982-cropI mustn’t omit one other aspect to my early work experience. In 1979 my father had a professionally specified darkroom built in the attic of our house for his business. So as a hobby I took up photography, and discovered an aptitude and life-long love. It wasn’t long before my old man would bring me three or four rolls of processed film home from the office two or three times a week. I would work from around 6pm to midnight in the darkroom and develop shots of surveys, drawings and completed interiors. I got £3 per film processed and 10p for every 10 x 8 print produced. I have great memories of listening to the John Peel show on Radio 1, in the dark save for an amber safelight. Ah… ‘The Cocteau Twins’, and ‘Song to the Siren’, he sighs… I digress. I was required to keep hourly time sheets as my time was being charged out to clients. I clocked up over 3,500 hours of lab processing time in the evenings and weekends between ‘79 – ‘82. A hobby that paid for the many great gigs I saw at the Glasgow Apollo and Edinburgh Playhouse. I still haven’t outdone 1982 for sheer number of concert attendances.

My four years full time study included drawing & painting, graphics, photography, colour theory, materials, perspective drawing, design history, construction, detailing, project programming, scheduling and specification. I began practicing in 1988, initially at my fathers’ studio at Oxford Circus in London and then with the likes of HOK Architects, Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, Pringle Brandon, Morgan Lovell and Geyer Design in Melbourne. In the early nineties I even worked for a couple of years in the design department of two furniture manufacturers, where I collaborated in the development of a new range of systems furniture.

During all my years of experience I have been privileged to work with some great people on some fascinating, and award winning office interior projects. There have been millions of square feet of offices over the years, and thousands of occupier/stakeholders in every conceivable market sector both in the UK and internationally.

Not withstanding my creative background, and training, my growing specialism was revealing itself in brief development and in working closely with office occupiers to determine their occupancy strategy. It seems like a small and arguably tedious aspect of the whole design process, as it was neither creative per se nor part of the design/drawing package production process. Although I have produced my fair share of plans, elevations, sections, and details over the years, and put together very effective design schemes.

Coincidentally It’s been 25 years since I mastered the use of Autocad for drawing. Self taught as a necessity over many late nights, when all the other designers in the studio had downed pens and gone home. My colleagues didn’t believe it would ever take off, and that drawings would always be produced with a clutch pencil on a drawing board. I believe it was ‘Release 9’ and it required two computer screens to operate, and a working knowledge of MS DOS. This was in the days before the use of the ‘mouse’ with ‘Windows 3.0’. Tempest Fugit.

GlaxoSmithKline-1Perhaps brief development is tedious by comparison to drawing and materials specification, but not to me. I loved the engagement with clients, the teasing out of salient data, the revealing anecdotes and office politics. The development of my design vocabulary by engaging with so many people on a daily basis. Whether one on one interviews or managing workshops for larger groups. Being gregarious and inquisitive helped. Gaining access to every corner of a business from the below stairs support staff hidden in the utilitarian basements, to the light bathed executives in quiet seclusion on the top floor. It seemed like a microcosm of society itself. It was an object lesson in the historical inequality in the workplace. The proverbial Taylorist vision of managed efficiency permeated every single office I came into contact with through the late eighties and early nineties. Accountants, Bankers, Engineers, Lawyers or Civil Servants, the list is long. Staff grades determined space allocation and proximity to daylight. It was all mapped out in the company hierarchy chart pinned to the walls in executive offices. Grim, but that’s how it was. Them were the rules, so to speak. Sharing, networking and creativity were like another language, and not a practical one at that.

During the nineties the big occupancy question for many businesses was whether to go open plan or remain in cellular offices. Inevitably a compromise was reached and typically about 70-80% of what were lovingly called ‘End Users’ were given an open plan ‘L’ shaped desk and clustered uniformly for space efficiency. The ‘L’ shaped desking configuration accommodated their unfeasibly huge cathode ray ‘VDU’ (Visual Display Units). Computer screens to you and I.

Most of the larger projects at this time were as a result of long leases coming to an end after 20 – 25 years (Halcyon days for landlords & developers). So these occupiers had sometimes been working in the same antiquated way in cellular offices since the late 60’s and early 70’s. As an aside, in 1982 I had attended one of the UK’s first training courses at Herman Miller in Tottenham Court Road on how to plan with ‘Action Office’ (AO). It involved a 0.35 ‘Rotring’ pen and an orange plastic 1:20 scale stencil, and a steady hand. ‘AO’ was the first reconfigurable modular desking system for creating open plan cubicles. Its forerunner was designed in the USA as far back as 1964. Although in the early nineties Herman Miller were promoting ‘Ethospace’. Open plan working in the UK was still a radical idea during the whole of the eighties and early nineties. It’s still a radical concept if you’re a law firm in 2013. Cough cough!

By way of context, we mustn’t forget that networked computing was still in its infancy in 1993/4 and even the mobile phone was a novelty to which many just aspired. The electric interweb was still dismissed as a nerdy fad for techie geeks, who salivated at the next release of ‘Netscape’ or ‘Mosaic’. Microsoft finally came to the Internet party very late with ‘Explorer’, their first web browser packaged into ‘Windows 95’. By the late nineties most office workers in medium and large businesses were now universally operating with networked computers and those who needed them were issued with mobile phones. Very few individuals had personal Internet access in the workplace until around 1997. Also a good flat screen monitor was around £1,000+ so were not generally available on most desktops until the early noughties. Consequently individual workspaces were still typically composed of a deep corner ‘VDU’ desk in open plan.

Merrill Lynch-1There were a number of factors that drove the exponential increase in open plan working in the late nineties, and none of them involved making life more comfortable or humanising, and lets not forget the telling language here, for the ‘End User’. Deep open plan floorplates were cheaper to build and fitout, and it was increasingly important to incorporate raised flooring and structured cabling. The more modular the space planning the easier it was to plug into power, data and comms. Equally as the ‘churn’ of the workforce increased to meet the rapidly changing needs of the business it was far easier and cheaper for FM’s to move people rather than their workstations. The age of the universal planning module was upon us.

If only the workspaces allocated for individuals tied in with the modularity of the building architecture and infrastructure? Tada! A sea of desks uninterrupted by walls or even columns. It was relatively cheap, efficient and easy to manage from a facilities perspective. One size fits all too. Factory farming in the modern workplace. What’s that I hear you say? What about the people? Oh! Well let’s throw in a few proverbial ‘Breakout Spaces’. The name says it all. Not very imaginative.

By the year 2001 (A Space Oddity) we have an occupancy model for offices that incorporates rectilinear wave form or bench desks in open plan, networked flat screens and desk clusters of 4, 6 or 8 with ancillary accommodation for ‘Breakout spaces’ with coffee and soft seating. Mmm comfy!

Asset-MgmtHowever, their remain six critical strategic drivers of design and planning in the modern office which plug into long term real estate strategy:

  • Growth
  • Flexibility
  • Costs
  • Sustainability
  • Productivity
  • Wellbeing

These drivers have contributed to the bubbling undercurrent of debate in the design and occupier community since the late nineties. Not least perhaps a recognition that people are not machines, and function far more effectively when given autonomy and freedom, as well as space and light. It’s undeniable that high speed connectivity and instant communications, as well as the insidious influence of the 2008 banking crisis have changed our view of work and permanence.

I’ll not go into any detail in this particular post about ‘Flexible Working’, or it’s numerous bizarre name changes over the last 15+ years. Consultants and occupiers have attempted to reinvent the same idea by giving it their own name. By all means call it ‘Agile Working’ if it makes you feel better, but pay attention because mark my words it’ll be called something else next year. Whatever it’s called, when the dust settles it’ll eventually just be called working. It first appeared in the mid nineties. I started conducting client workshops for major occupiers to examine ‘Flexible Working’ using my own interactive graphical tools as far back as 1998. The difficulty then as it is now, is to identify suitable candidates and then determine the ratio of specific accommodation needs to actual employees. However the largest hurdle is gaining trust and ‘Buy-In’ to the idea. It’s no wonder!

I still find it shocking that an occupancy concept that was first created to engender cross working, creativity and empowered autonomy, is normally examined by project sponsors as a real estate cost reduction strategy. Either because of a lack of space or to minimize space requirements in new builds or relocations. There is a considered balance to be struck between ‘Flexible Working’ and benefit to the organisation. The benefit ought to be measured in improvements to productivity and wellbeing due to changes in working processes, but it is all too often measured in net space savings. Reason being it’s easier, and more straightforward to put a figure to property than it is to improvements in morale and consequently productivity or creativity. The ‘measurement’ of wellbeing remains a challenge. As does the use of the word ‘measurement’ where people are concerned. However, we need starting points or benchmarks and we need to recognise variations and changes in order to say something has happened. Dare I say it’s a scientific necessity in order to arrive at a non scientific aesthetic. Effective workplace design needs data as well as emotive anecdotes.

Whats next? Global social networking came out of nowhere in 2003 with ‘Myspace’ and more significantly in 2004 with ‘Facebook’. ‘Twitter’ followed in 2006 and Apple provided the tipping point access device with the release of the first iPhone in 2007, and the first iPad in 2010. Then notably the first high speed 4G wireless network in 2012. Everything you were required to do at your desk or at the office, was now able to be done anywhere at anytime on a device in the palm of your hand. Oops! What does that mean for office design and the much-maligned cynicism I read about the ‘Workplace Consultant’?

Some would have you believe that connectivity and social networking through sexy tech devices marks the end of the office. Some would say it will radically change how the office looks and functions. Insert mental image of beanbags and orgasmatron cubicle. Many of you will have heard of the hilarious review by Lucy Kellaway in the Financial Times of Googles new offices in London. It’s a hoot! Some say a notable differentiator in the workplace is behavioural psychology and whether you are a particular personality type, an introvert or extrovert. Carl Jung would maybe disapprove of his words being used to be so definitive in this context. They were after all merely pointers and language to communicate concepts in a psychoanalysis setting. Maybe the office is just a place for collaboration and face-to-face socialising. Perhaps future work will be done in so called ‘3rd Spaces’. Give me strength! Seriously, ‘3rd Spaces’? What is that anyway? A bus stop, a launderette, the local park?

The office is the place where you will always enjoy work with your colleagues. Whether you’re a ‘Gen X’, ‘Gen Y’ or ‘Millennial’, or perhaps one of 20+ so called personality types of various ages. The office is a resource, and it has a cost and a corresponding benefit. We will all still be subject to market forces and we’ll do whatever we have to do to keep our businesses functioning profitably. There is no buzzword defined panacea or miracle technology to make it future proof.

As long as we remain a sociable species we will do our best work together. In a business context, I would contend that social networking is no more than a distraction, and does not connect us, it separates us. It’s currently a broadcast marketing tool that benefits the few not the many. Not withstanding how you may have linked to this blog. The irony of my point is not lost on me. Once in a while we should also come down to earth and remember, that at the end of the day we’re all just monkeys in suits. (Excluding Fridays)

Super Special Magic Pixie Dust is the only alternative to hard earned experience in this business and we all know there is a range of seminars you can attend to pick up your supply. Equally you’ll find a great deal of the stuff in 140 character snippets on Twitter. It may seem like half baked marketing bullshit, but it’s not, it’s actually Super Special Magic Pixie Dust and without a lifetimes experience in workplace design you’ll need loads of it to make yourself look like you know what your talking about. Especially if your in Design & Build, IT, or Furniture marketing.

About Me

Double HelixNot all my posts will be so grandiose, scientific and philosophical in tone but in starting this new blog venture I thought I should look at the big picture first.

I occasionally wonder why we commonly identify ourselves by ‘What we do’, or rather what we do for a living. As if our job identifies us to strangers. In reality of course it merely reveals no more than what work we perform. Our job will likely give the inquisitive stranger a kind of faux knowing, as preconceptions will instantly kick in. Equally, if I said I enjoy music, art, politics and as a fervent atheist the books of Richard Dawkins you would still know little ‘About Me’.

I could attempt to project the persona that I would like you to see, but it would still not be me. I would defy anyone to package themselves into a few well-chosen words of description pointing to job, age, interests, achievements or nationality. I would argue that the more we can dissociate ourselves from self description the better we will feel and the more liberating it will be. The abandonment of Ego is a worthy and healthy goal in the face of often harsh realities. Coming into regular conflict with other egos is indeed a kind of delusional stupidity, not to mention daily challenge.

So there is no ‘About Me’ per se, just a brief comment on the nature of identity, and a recognition that identifying with nationalities, philosophies, religions or politics may be comforting or useful to some for a while, but it is neither here nor there. It literally makes no difference to final outcomes. Entropy continues apace in this physical universe. Life at a fundamental level is a diverse delivery mechanism for the DNA code contained in the double helix, a spiral polymer of nucleic acids. You and I in the final analysis are just chemicals made from stardust. This is life, and its fascinating and awesome (A word seldom used at the right moment these days). The rest is conversation.

As an allegedly intelligent individual and species, what is arguably important is recognition of our values. These may be highly subjective but it is an indicator of our ethics and philosophy. That which underpins our actions beyond fulfilling our fundamental human needs.

My philosophy might be usefully summed up in the following two statements:

  • ‘Individuals may act freely unless their actions harm others or interfere with others’ freedom or with functions of society that individuals need, provided those functions do not themselves interfere with these prescribed individual rights and were agreed to by a majority of the individuals.’
  • ‘Every time I open the paper, there’s another example of theocratic encroachment upon free society, which I won’t put up with, …up with which I will not put. I hope that’s clear’ – Christopher Hitchens

For the purposes of this new blog, who I am is simply never knowable or relevant, but my values will be seen here and they may conflict with your own. In the end, it’s just a bit of fun and a welcome distraction. Thanks to Neil and his workessence blog, and Anne Marie at The Smart Work Company for inspiring me to get started.

Thank you.