Ceramic Art by Henk Mooij, 1930–2015

Creating a memorable experience. Imagineering and hospitality perceive an experience as something to be created, something that a provider or a host can deliver to his client. Imagineering and hospitality influence perception and are, therefore “hot” in marketing.

Also, Facility Management and Human Resource Management have become interested in experience. Through experience, they expect to be able to increase internal customer satisfaction and to bind scarce talent. Soon ideas from retail and leisure were translated to the work environment. But facility managers and even more so, corporate real estate managers are also responsible for the flexibility of the housing and the future value of real-estate. How does that relate to the experience of the staff?

This article shows why it is possible to combine both strategies. Binding of personnel using perception and hospitality, and securing the flexibility and future value of the real estate.

Experience economy

If we may believe marketers, we are in the middle of the experience economy. But what is an experience economy? According to Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, the authors of ‘The Experience Economy’, the customer today expects more than a product, he is willing to pay for an experience. Companies offer the stage to create that experience, a memorable occasion which gives the customer a warm feeling. The value that the client attaches to that particular experience determines the price of the product or service. In their book ’Imagineering’ Diane de Nijs and Frank Peters translate this to the European situation. Instead of thematizing and adding theater they impose an emphasis on authentic experience. Regardless of whether it is a new kind of economy, it is clear that the experience plays a significant role in the choices people make. Among the abundant prosperity with virtually unlimited technological possibilities people’s expectations of the quality of their lives is changing. They want to include a meaningful community and finding inspiration and meaning.

Different Life Cycles

One aspect lacking until now in the vision of the experience economy is the time factor. There is a significant difference between the life cycle of the experience and that of the environment or a building. Authenticity, for example, involves history, stories. Caused by the time. The perception is the result. On one hand one wants to be flexible, change rapidly, and have the newest of the new, and on the other hand, one wants to enjoy authentic quality in a sustainable environment, with time and attention to each other. How to seize these seemingly opposite worlds together?

Short cycle of experience

In the experience economy, people are willing to pay for an experience, as long as that experience is unique and meaningful. An experience should not habit, but must renew. Trends follow each other rapidly. Partly thanks to the Internet, with its blogs and Twitter, trends change almost hourly. Which means that the expectation, regarding the experience of real events, changes at the same pace. The trend in nightlife is now the Indian-atmosphere of the lounge bar, but less than a month later, it could be the `lacquer box’ of the new Thai food restaurant. Getting attention is and will remain important, but how long do you keep the attention? How can you prevent an authentic experience of a location hundreds of years old to run out of fashion within a year? For visitors, this is not bad; they simply go to the next authentic spot. But the authentic place loses his visitors and may no longer be viable. For companies, that is not different. Facility managers notice more and more that the program of requirements is outdated already at the moment of the building’s completion. Apparently, the lifecycle of the function now is shorter than the average construction of a building.

Long cycle of the built environment

Contrary to the perception and use, the built environment has a relatively long life cycle. Buildings and even more cities connect different generations. It is the sustainability of cities, that legitimates its existence, while the dynamics represent its life energy. Within the sustainable aspects of the city (location and structure) is a lot short cycle renewed. The shops change per season. The new collection is the new interior. The shop with the sustainable mahogany interior with drawers, mirrors and the like has long disappeared. The mix of change and constancy makes the city attractive. Amidst the newly developed district, the old church is still standing. Among all those monumental facades suddenly appears a new contemporary building. The whole continues to function. The main features remain intact. Functions change, but the structure remains.

Form Follows Function?

Despite this contrariety in the lifecycle, it is common practice to develop the design of the housing based on work and the corporate identity. The assumption of such a direct relationship between the behavior of the organization and the design of its housing is a legacy of functionalism. Now the lifecycles of the use and the building diverge, it is no longer realistic to take the function as a reliable starting point for the relationship between structure and use. The realization of a new building on a planned location is a layered system of building to the city, the location, the building, the interior of the building and finally the level of daily use. Each level has its life, scope of planning, and flexibility.

Hierarchy of scale and lifecycle

Each level has its flexibility

The intervention in the city, for example, has a lifespan of at least 50 years. The choice which volume and the architecture appear at the site determines the image for the next fifty years. The inner layout of the building, installations, the ceilings, and the separations are replaced in the life of the building several times, to adapt to changing use and to apply new technology. The use finally is so dynamic in nature, which entails considerable uncertainty when planning five years ahead. The design of a building, which is at least 50 years must perform in an urban context can, reasonably no longer successfully be based on the function of use.

How this translates into practice?

A building will be used in various ways in the course of its life. Buildings must attract and release subsequent users over time. Therefore, buildings must possess the lasting quality to remain attractive again and again for other functions and users. The world of the user and the world of real estate will meet each other again and let loose. What are those worlds?

The world of the user

The user wants adequate housing. He wants an environment that meets the changing user behavior. He wants at any moment the most functional and most attractive work environment. The user expects that form follows function is still possible. Additionally, the user wants more than functionality. He seeks to have an experience that supports the mission of the organization. Companies are looking for any means to establish relationships and to continue to excite people and bind. There is hardly any difference between the binding of the binding of customers and employees. Through an experience enthusiasm and loyalty are built. Experiencing something together, leaving a memory you share. Feeling a sense of belonging has to do with the interaction with colleagues. Do they acknowledge your contribution? Are you appreciated? Can you develop sufficiently within the company and excel? Commitment and inspiration are a relational thing between people.

The world of real estate

Developers and investors have a preference for real estate with enduring appeal in the market (future value) and long-term leases. From this perspective, they are interested in the trends in user behavior. But they know better than anyone that governs the issues of the day. Nobody can predict what users want in five years. Buildings are designed for a lifespan of at least 30 years. Providers of property prefer to remain far from customer-specific buildings unless long-term leases are agreed. Even the development of function-specific buildings, such as office buildings, entails the risk of vacancy. Redevelopment of office buildings for other functions often breaks down upon structural features, specially selected for one type of use only.

Co-creation

The world of real estate and the world of the user finally meet in the use. Both worlds are valid, and one is not better than the other. There is no direct causal link. The one world does not answer to the problems of the other world. The property developer cannot confer to the user what he needs to develop, and how they will behave over fifteen years. But it is not realistic for the user to expect that the environment is free to develop fully flexible.

Functionalism is nearing its end, and the fixed relationship between the building and use is disappearing. We’re going into a period of ad-hocism The term ad-hocism goes back to the book ‘Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation’, written by Charles Jencks and Nathan Silver in 1972. That means that the environment (from building to furniture), is regarded as given, and the user sees the opportunities and exploits them to create his form of use. Each object in the environment can be understood as a world of possibilities, and can be used to create an environment that fulfills the human needs. The user decides which function the object gets.

That is very similar to the modern concept of co-creation, whereby a product, service or experience is created in the interaction between supplier and customer. The provider is limited to provide (infra) structures as a precondition and the customer there within creates its product and experience. However, there is a fundamental difference. In co-creation, a customized product of service is supplied based on the input of the customer. At ad-hocism, the customer creates his experience with existing objects in the environment, which have come about without his involvement.

So, a service provider (facility manager, an external vendor, hotel operator or anyone else) creates a work environment with a distinct character and a unique appearance, regardless of the identity of the user. For example High-tech skyscraper, Historic building, Refurbished factory, Multifunctional residence, Work hotel, Internet café or Green campus.

Only the choices made by the organization and its employees reflect the identity of the organization. The selection of the buildings they use, the people with whom they work and the places where they meet, show what the organization stands for. The image that is achieved this way lives and changes with the people and the organization.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the decoupling of the building and its use make it possible simultaneously to:

Bring together customers and staff around the mission, by creating an experience, which comes about primarily by the behavior of people through Imagineering and hospitality. Design a physical work environment independently of users, so the facility manager can focus on monitoring flexibility and future value of the property.

The next article ‘Branding an Office’ explains in more detail how an organization can manifest itself as an interplay of work style, work community and environment.

Bibliography

James H. Gilmore and B. Joseph Pine. The experience economy: work is theater & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999.

Diane Nijs and Frank Peters. Imagineering: het creëren van belevingswerelden. Boom, Amsterdam, 2002.

Charles Jencks and Nathan Silver. Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation. Anchor Books, 1973.