The field of the invention is work space divider systems and more specifically partition systems that divide space into sub-spaces that are useable by two people to facilitate collaborative activity wherein the sub-spaces also include locations for private and more public activity.
Office designers have known for a long time that collaborative activity is extremely important to facilitate innovation and creative thinking—as the saying goes, two heads are better than one. In this regard, when groups of people interact as a team and share ideas, one person's ideas often act as a catalyst for the other team member's ideas and vice versa, such that final combined work products are far superior to the work product that a single person could muster in seclusion. For instance, when working on a new ad campaign, an exemplary team of five diverse people may feed off each others ideas and tentatively decide on a campaign theme and various general aspects of the campaign by drawing on each others experiences.
Despite the advantages of collaborative work, office designers also know that there are times when people need and appreciate at least some degree of privacy and personal space in order to perform certain employment and personal tasks. Thus, for instance, after the exemplary five person advertising team decides on a campaign theme and some general campaign details, the team assign different aspects of the campaign to different team members for further development. Here, to help members focus on the aspects that they are responsible for, each person on the team may want a private or at least semiprivate space to help physically block out distractions and protect ideas as they are developed.
As another instance, even while at work, many people perform at least some personal business from time to time such as paying bills, corresponding with friends via e-mail, booking vacations, searching for information on the Internet, eating lunch, reading the newspaper or a magazine, etc. Often people feel more secure tending to personal tasks if they are in an environment that provides at least some level of privacy.
In many cases people use computers to attend to personal business, to organize their thoughts and to test out new thoughts and ideas by expressing those ideas on a display screen. Thus, in many cases, required privacy simply amounts to a space wherein the only person that can readily view a display screen unimpeded is the person using the associated computer.
Knowing that both collaboration and privacy are important in office design and being constrained by overall office space, office designers are now developing office spaces that foster collaborative activities while still offering at least some level of privacy when desired. To this end, many offices now include open office plans wherein large office spaces are divided into smaller, generally standard sized, individual workspaces by partition walls that extend from a floor surface to a height (e.g., between 60 and 72 inches) that impedes a standing person of ordinary height from peering over from one side to the other. Hereinafter the typical height of a wall that impedes a standing person of ordinary height from peering over will be referred to as a “full height” wall unless indicated otherwise.
The full height walls provide at least some privacy for a person within a workspace but still allows the person to at least verbally communicate over the top thereof with a person in an adjacent workspace thereby facilitating at least some degree of collaboration. In addition, in the case of many partition systems, the access openings into the separate workspaces are left open thereby further facilitating interaction among persons that share a general area within the larger office space.
To provide support for office equipment and a work surface for writing, spreading out documents, etc., most workspaces include desk height credenzas (e.g., 24-32 inches) along the partition walls that provide top surfaces comfortably useable by a person sitting in a chair adjacent one of the credenzas. To provide the most work surface possible within a workspace, most systems include credenzas along each wall that separates one workspace from an adjacent workspace. Here, one or more “private” spaces within a standard sized workspace usually exist where a computer display screen is positionable such that views of the screen from outside the workspace are at least impeded.
In at least some cases partition systems have been designed with “partial height walls” (e.g., 42 inches) between adjacent workspaces so that persons in adjacent workspaces can make eye contact when at least one of the persons is standing but that still impedes a person that is sitting in one workspace from peering into the other workspace. Here, where first and second people are sitting in adjacent workspaces, neither of the people can see what the other person is doing but, for instance, when the first person wants to collaborate with the second person, the first person can just stand up to make eye contact with the second person. Where people can view each other while communicating, visual cues (e.g., facial expressions, posture, etc.) enhance communication effectiveness and hence collaboration.
Another office design technique that facilitates collaboration is to provide common areas or conference rooms for teams of people that include comfortable furniture, writing surfaces and collaborative tools such as display screens, writing boards, conferencing equipment, etc. Often open offices will include collaborative spaces interspersed throughout so that persons within the vicinity thereof have easy access thereto.
Yet another office design technique that has been used to foster communication is to provide a horizontal “standing height” surface (e.g., 42 inches) along the top of a partition wall in a reception area so that a person that approaches a receptionist located within the workspace is provided with a comfortable surface on which to place documents, to use as a writing surface, etc., while communicating with the receptionist. Here, a credenza or the like having a height lower than the height of the counter surface is typically provided on the workspace side of the counter surface and a display screen and keyboard are positioned on the credenza with the rear surface of the screen facing the standing height surface for use by a sitting or standing receptionist. Thus, the receptionist and a visitor have their own separate surfaces on which to perform tasks and the receptionist's display screen is hidden from viewing by a visitor located adjacent the standing height surface.
Still one other collaborative configurations include a desk height surface (e.g., 24-32 inches) either between adjacent workspaces or along an outer wall of a workspace that is common with a public space (e.g., a walkway between workspaces). Here, persons in adjacent workspaces or first and second persons in a workspace and in a public space, respectively, can collaborate around the desk surface while seated. In some cases desk surfaces positioned to facilitate collaboration include at least one rounded edge so that several persons can collaborate thereat.
While each of the configurations and design techniques described above has several advantages, unfortunately each of the configurations and techniques suffer form one or more shortcomings. First, it has been recognized that while two heads may be better than one, in fact, two heads may also be better than three, four or more heads, when it comes to collaborative activities. In this regard, it has been observed that whenever three or more persons collaborate on a project, usually a sub-set of the collaborators that are relatively more extroverted will lead the project and more freely share their ideas while the more introverted collaborators will simply follow the lead without making their ideas known. However, if one of the more introverted collaborators is paired with just one other person to collaborate on the same project, it has been observed that the introvert much more freely. Because most people communicate relatively freely in pairs we can assume that most people want to express their ideas.
While it is unclear why some persons tend to communicate more freely in pairs than in larger groups, it is believed that some people are relatively uncomfortable testing new ideas with other people in groups where a majority viewpoint is possible and likely. Here, for example, on one hand, where three people collaborate and two opinions are expressed, more often than not at least two people will share one opinion resulting in a majority. On the other hand, when two people collaborate, no majority is possible when a difference of opinion occurs—the worst that can happen is that the two people disagree. When faced with the possibility of simple disagreement people tend to express their ideas more freely than when faced with potentially having come up with, and having to defend, a minority position.
In addition, some people are relatively uncomfortable testing new ideas with other people in groups where it is difficult to obtain visual feedback. To this end it has been recognized that, because a person can only closely observe one other person at a time, a person can more readily perceive visual queues from one person than from people in larger groups during communication. For this reason, a person can gauge how test ideas are being perceived more readily in a pair than they can in larger groups. Where an idea is expressed and visual queues indicate a misunderstanding or clear disagreement, the ideas can be re-articulated or speedily dropped to avoid embarrassment.
Moreover, it is believed that, in general, people are more critical of ideas when in a group including three or more people than when working with only one other person. In this regard, people that have the same view point tend to feed off each others ideas and take comfort in the fact that their opinion is validated by someone else. When a person believes that her opinion has been validated by others, that person tends to become more critical of other opinions which adversely affects the collaborative process.
While some of the configurations and techniques described above can be used to facilitate communication between two people, none of the configurations or techniques is optimal. To this end, an optimal space for two person collaboration should include a space that is physically separate from a larger office space and is at least somewhat private for use by the two people, that includes a shared space or common work surface that is readily available for spontaneous use and where shared information can be maintained for long periods (e.g., several days or weeks), where the two people can, when desired, see each other during communication and where each of the two people has at least some private space for attending to personal or non-collaborative tasks. In addition, it would be advantageous if the space characteristics described above could be accomplished in a space that is similar to the space required to provide two standard sized workstations using existing partition systems so that additional office space would not be required.
Where full height (e.g., 60-72 inches) partition walls separate adjacent workspaces, communication between people in adjacent workspaces is difficult at best because the partition walls typically muffle sound to some extent and visual queues may be completely blocked. In addition, where people attempt to communicate over a full height wall confidentiality is usually lost as other people in the vicinity of the wall can usually hear any conversation. Moreover, full height wall configurations do not provide a common work surface that is readily available for spontaneous collaboration and where shared information can be maintained for long periods.
While conference rooms can be used by two people to confidentially collaborate and usually include a table that can be used as a common surface, conference rooms are usually reserved on a relatively formal basis which is not conducive to spontaneous collaborative activity. In addition, typically conference rooms are used for relatively small periods of time (e.g., a few hours) at the end of which shared information has to be removed. Whenever information has to be removed form a space continuity of thought is broken and overall creativity often suffers. Moreover, permanent conference rooms are costly, especially when not in use and are usually designed for use by more than two people so that when a pair of people are using a conference room the space is usually underutilized.
Where partition wall heights are reduced to partial height (e.g., a standing height), while a first person standing on one side of the wall can have a line of sight to and can communicate with a second person either standing or sitting on the other side of the wall, where a credenza or desk surface is located on one or both sides of the wall the first and second people are usually separated by several feet (e.g., the combined credenza widths). Here, as in the case of the full height walls, because of the space that separates the first and second people, communication over the credenzas and wall does not feel confidential and free/unencumbered collaboration tends to be minimal at best. In addition, partial height walls alone do not provide a surface on which two people can share ideas and on which information can be maintained for long periods.
Similarly, where a standing height surface is provided over a receptionist's desk as part of a receptionist workspace configuration or is provided over credenzas on either side of a partial height wall, a first person on one side of the standing height surface is separated from a second person on the other side of the surface by at least the width of the desk or credenzas and communication is hampered.
In addition, the standing height surface is not particularly useful as a common surface by people on opposite sides thereof. In the case of the receptionist workspace configuration, the receptionist typically uses the receptionist's desk top while a visitor uses the standing height surface and it is inconvenient for either the receptionist to use the standing height surface or for the visitor to use the receptionist's desk top.
In the case of a standing height surface above credenzas on either side of a wall that separates workspaces, while items can be placed on the standing height surface, the standing height surface is not very useful as a work surface for collaborative activities as a person on either side of the standing height surface would have to lean over one of the credenzas there below in order to access the standing height surface—an uncomfortable position at best.
In the case of a desk height table provided between first and second adjacent workspaces, while first and second people in the adjacent spaces can confidentially and comfortably collaborate at the common table while seated on chairs, the desk height table leaves the workspaces generally open to each other which substantially reduces the possibilities of configuring private sub-spaces within the workspaces. To this end, when a desk height table is provided between adjacent workspaces, the table does not block the line of sight of a seated person in one of the workspaces into the other workspace. Thus, even when seated within one of the workspaces, a person is not in a private space.
One other design feature for facilitating collaboration between two people has been to support a display screen above a desk surface on a sliding and rotating carriage such that the front surface of the screen is moveable to different positions and can be viewed by people on opposite sides of a desk. In these cases the supporting structures that facilitate sliding and rotating usually have several shortcomings. First, in some cases, the supporting structures include one or several components that reside above the desk top surface that impede use of the desk top. Where supporting structure components reside above the desk top the resulting configurations are also aesthetically unappealing.
Second, in other known cases where supporting structure is at least in part disposed below a desk top, the supporting structure extends downward from an undersurface of the desktop and impedes placement of legs there below. The solution in these cases has been to either mount the supporting structure below a lateral edge of the desk surface so that the display screen is laterally disposed with respect to a person using the desk or to provide a desk where the supporting structure is offset from a front edge of the desk (i.e., the edge adjacent the person using the desk) sufficiently that the when legs are placed under the desk, the legs will not contact the supporting structure. Thus, designs of display screen supporting structure have limited the overall options available for office space designers.
Thus, it would be advantageous to have a partition system for two people that defines a space that is physically separate from a larger office space and is at least somewhat private for use by the two people, that includes a shared or common work surface that is readily available for spontaneous use and where shared information can be maintained for long periods (e.g., several days or weeks), where the two people can, when desired, see each other during communication and where each of the two people has at least some private space for attending to personal or non-collaborative tasks. It would also be advantageous if the partition system provided at least some public space for interaction with persons outside each of the workspaces. Moreover, it would be advantageous if all of the advantages described above could be accomplished in a space similar to the space required for existing partition systems to support two people. Furthermore, it would be advantageous if a sliding support assembly were available that could support a display screen or other workspace accessories from a desk or other work surface where the support structure components are at least substantially disposed within a desk or other work surface member such that private and common or public surface configurations previously impractical could be designed.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds