workplace economics / benchmarking

by Paul Carder@paulcarder

Returning home late in one of my first cars, one of my first girlfriends invited me in for coffee. She filled a huge kettle right to the top, and switched it on. I remember saying, “Are you expecting someone else to join us?” Unaware of my humour (probably our eventual demise), she proceeded to explain how her father had told her that all machines are most efficient when working at full capacity. For once, I kept my mouth shut – there is a time and a place. I think I just smiled and said, “He’s a clever guy, your Dad”, not that I had a clue, and hoping that I would not meet him that evening. Anyway, I doubt that the coffee was important. I discovered it rarely was.

Somewhere, the truth about the efficiency of the kettle had been lost in translation. Like the old World War I story, recounted here by Ben Rooney in the Wall Street Journal:

In the annals of military folklore is the story of the supposed orders being sent by a British unit in World War 1 that was sent as “Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” but received by the headquarters  as “Send Three and Fourpence, we are going to a dance”. And this was in the days before Google Translate.

The real point is, of course, that filling the kettle ‘to the max’ may ensure that the kettle works at maximum efficiency. But, it is not efficient for two cups of coffee. And, if you have little interest in the coffee anyway, it is certainly not effective! Even the sentence is not efficient – “Would you like to come in [stop]” is efficient. “For a coffee” could be replaced….

Is this going somewhere? Maybe. So, coffee is not the biggest issue. When to meet, how to meet, where to meet – we can be more effective. That is a bigger issue.

At the corporate level, imagine the numbers. My friends at Condeco are making inroads into analysis of the efficiency of meeting rooms and related resources. In fact they have been recognized by Gartner for doing so. Some of the world’s largest organisations such as GE, Chevron, Barclays, Unilever and BBC, all use Condeco to book their meeting rooms, desks and resources across the world.

How many very large kettles are there out in the huge corporate world, boiling up for just two cups?

Or, how many very large meeting rooms are there in all those thousands of buildings, being used by two people for a meeting? Any facilities director knows, there are “a lot” (those in the companies listed above, having Condeco reporting tools, will know far more accurately). Worse, “no shows” are the equivalent of boiling the large kettle, then not drinking the coffee anyway! But on a macro and very expensive scale.

As managers of the corporation’s second-largest expense – buildings, space and related resources – we must do more to manage this inefficiency. Much like the question, how often in human interaction does ‘coffee’ mean ‘coffee’? How often does a meeting need a meeting room? Where, and what size? These are decisions with a cost implication.

Coffee often does not mean coffee. Two people boiling a huge kettle is inefficient. And every ‘couple’ meeting in a 20-seat conference room is costing your shareholders.

{ 2 comments }

Agility Ratio: Productive Benchmark or Property Target

by Paul Carder on September 8, 2011

(re-posted from 26/4/2010)

Office property is expensive – after people,  property is the next biggest balance sheet item. In the current climate it is particularly vital that organisations look to minimise fixed property commitments and maximise their space utilisation. Optimising the use of space will support core business in meeting the simultaneous demand for cutting costs and reducing environmental impacts, but it needs to achieve this without reducing (or while also improving) the quality of business outputs.

The office is there to support people and work activity. Indeed much has been written about the impact of the workplace on productivity. Optimising space is not about cramming more desks and people into less space, if you want to ensure a productive workplace. It is more about understanding the capability and suitability of the space to support levels of occupation density, and knowing the workstyles and functions of the people and activity to be accommodated.

Clearly, different buildings have different capabilities. Heating, lighting, ventilation, power and other services impose restrictions on capacity, as do building, planning & fire regulations, legal restrictions as well as technology to support business operations. This is not to say the capability cannot be changed, but this may take some significant investment in structure and infrastructure which will itself impact on existing occupation and use.

[Read more…]

{ 0 comments }

This ‘review’ site lists 20 coffee shops that people have bothered to comment about: Compare Coffee Shops.  That suggests to me that there are dozens more across our towns and cities…so what?

Have you sat in one recently? Yes, sure you have…but why? Quite possibly you bought a coffee to make yourself feel less guilty about “camping” in Costa, Starbucks or wherever, with your laptop and phone out on the table…working! Did you actually want a coffee? Maybe, but equally likely you just came out of someone’s office where you already had one or two cups…

The question is, what are you paying for here? $2 for a desk for an hour, with a free coffee? Or $2 for a coffee, and a free seat? I know that I have paid both ways…if you’re a ‘glass half full’ person, you’ll think its a cheap coffee for $1 and you pay $1/hour for the “desk”. That’s not bad value, is it?

[Read more…]

{ 2 comments }