PLACE.PLAY.INNOVATION.MA.Luscutoff

Place, Play & Innovation:
Principles of Play in the Design of
Collaborative Workspaces
by
Alexis Luscutoff
Communication Master’s Project
Advisors: Howard Rheingold, Professor Fred Turner
M.A. Communication – Media Studies
Stanford University, May 2013

Alexis Luscutoff
2
2
Place, Play & Innovation:
Principles of Play in the Design of Collaborative Workspaces
By Alexis Luscutoff
In Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation, Richard Sennett
suggests that we are progressively losing our ability to relate to each other as a result of
modern society’s increasing economic and social divisions. So, he says, “we are losing
the skills of cooperation needed to make a complex society work.”1
For Sennett, the
mechanized nature of modern production has detracted from our social connections and
our ability to work together. Contemporary creative industries, however, require these
skills for growth and innovation. Sennett suggests that we need to hone our listening
skills, communicate better, and build empathy in order to adapt to the collaborative
nature of the growing creative economy.
This loss of collaboration skills accompanies a progressive shift in modes of
production that began during the mid 19th
century. During the industrial era (approx.
1850’s to present) corporations were hierarchical and centralized, and mass produced
manufactured goods. The hierarchical model did and does function according to a linear
status progression wherein individuals are assigned to specific positions and report to
people above them. As a result of changes brought about by information technology, in
the final quarter of the 20th
century the predominant model of production shifted from
industrial to post-industrial (approx. 1970 – present) and mass production shifted to
mass customization of information goods.2
Post-industrialism is characterized by a
heterarchical model of production with firms that have leveled structures in which
colleagues work together and do not necessarily report to a superior. Although the
contemporary heterarchical model provides a framework for interpersonal engagement

Alexis Luscutoff
3
3
in the work place, Sennett suggests that society’s complexities have stratified
individuals such that they have trouble working together.
Sennett addresses a real problem, but as this paper will show, this problem is not
unsolvable. I propose a remedy to Sennett’s problem that uses physical spaces as a
means for helping people work together. I ask: how can space facilitate collaboration,
now that, as Sennett proposes, we’re losing skills of cooperation? In the following
paper, I argue that by incorporating principles of play into the design of collaborative
workspaces, we can help people collaborate better.
My argument is primarily concerned with the manner in which we can manipulate
space so it helps people play together and therefore collaborate better. Companies
have overlooked this concept for so long because, as adults, we have become
prejudiced against the word play. We associate playing with juvenile behavior and think
of work and play as opposites: play is juvenile, work is serious; children play and adults
work. However, we neglect to appreciate that play can actually help us work better. It
helps us be imaginative, create ideas, interact with each other, and enjoy ourselves.
By creating an opposition between play and work, we are creating places that are
not equipped to deal with creative people. However, if we repurpose the meaning of
play in the workplace, we might be able to achieve our work goals better than we
currently do. When we, adults, reframe our understanding of play as something positive,
we will open infinite possibilities for productivity and innovation. So, if we think of play as
a catalyst for work, we can help to develop more productive people who create better
ides and are happier in the process.

Alexis Luscutoff
4
4
Throughout this paper, I will derive a set of design principles from theories of play
in order to build workspaces in which teams can collaborate most fruitfully. I seek
solutions to Sennett’s problem by conducting a literature review, interviews, and
observations of collaborative workspaces in a range of corporate, learning, and public
environments. The texts I cite for my literature review are written by experts in
production, spatial design, play principles, and improvisation. The interviews I
conducted include insights from collaboration experts, designers, and professionals who
regularly work in collaborative environments. My observations include references to
spaces that are at the cutting edge of spatial design and are renowned for their success
as collaborative work environments. I observed the following corporate spaces: IDEO,
Palo Alto and The Garage at Google, Mountain View; learning spaces: the ME310
Design Loft and the d.school at Stanford University; and public spaces: PARISOMA,
San Francisco, and the Hacker Dojo, Mountain View. By observing how these work
environments incorporate play into their spatial design, we can see that play is a key
element of success and innovation.
What is Collaboration?
Because Sennett’s problem raises the idea of cooperation, an important first step
is distinguishing between cooperation and the related term collaboration, so as to
understand how these concepts work together. Sennett defines cooperation as “an
exchange in which participants benefit from the encounter…they cooperate to
accomplish what they can’t do alone”.3
Collaboration is an extension of cooperation that
requires a common goal and communication about that goal. Arthur Himmelman, in
Collaboration for a Change: Definitions, Decision-Making Models, Roles, and

Alexis Luscutoff
5
5
Collaboration Profess Guides provides a succinct definition of collaboration, with
relation to networking, coordinating, and cooperating. He writes,
(1) NETWORKING is defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit…
(2) COORDINATING is defined as exchanging information and altering activities
for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose…
(3) COOPERATING is defined as exchanging information, altering activities, and
sharing resources for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose…
(4) COLLABORATING is defined as exchanging information, altering activities,
sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another for mutual benefit
and to achieve a common purpose.4
The distinction between collaboration and cooperation therefore lies in the actors’ desire
to enhance the capacity of their fellow actors for mutual benefit and to achieve a
common purpose. While in theory cooperation and collaboration are quite similar, in
practice collaborating is unique because it means communicating with the group and
working toward shared goals. Therefore, in order to answer Sennett’s question as it
relates to collaboration, we must account for the added element of group motivation in
the work environment.
Collaboration is an interactive process that occurs over time, in multiple stages,
and benefits all members of a group equally. Mamykina, Candy, and Edmonds suggest
in Collaborative Creativity that the collaboration process “usually consists of three main
activities 1) Creative conceptualization, 2) Realization (or implementation), and 3)
Evaluation”.5
Himmelman adds, “collaboration is usually characterized by substantial
time commitments, very high levels of trust, and extensive areas of common turf.”6
Herman Miller and the Institute for the Future discuss fundamentals for cooperation in
Designing Business for an Open World that also apply to collaborative work. They
suggest that cooperation, and by extension collaboration, motivate individuals by
creating a competition, not between individuals, but between the group and their ideas:

Alexis Luscutoff
6
6
Cooperation provides strategies for creating wealth by assuring shared
advantages and increasing resources for the collective whole…this strategy
reframes competitive situations as non-zero-sum-games – those in which
someone does not have to lose in order for there to be a winner.7
In principle, collaboration is about individuals working toward the betterment of the
whole group, or team, so that the resulting unit is greater than the sum of its parts.
Therefore, collaboration is most effective when individuals have empathy for their team
members, because that empathy drives the group’s work and helps individuals support
each other in times of insecurity and potential competitiveness.
Creativity is a building block for collaboration. I understand creativity according to
the following two definitions:
Creativity is “the development of original ideas that are useful or influential.”8
Creativity is “the ability to produce work that is innovative, implying both novelty and
usefulness. Novelty implies originality (eg. a new idea) and usefulness implies
relevance (eg., application of the new idea and its relevance to the underlying task).
The general definition of creativity also implies that it is both a it is both a process
and a product, that is, creativity involves a series of actions directed to some end.”9
At the core of these definitions is the notion that creativity is fundamental to
establishing ideas. Both individual and group creativity derive from these same
principles.
Like creativity, collaboration is a process. The collaboration process that
Mamykina, Candy, and Edmonds describe above reveals that where there is
collaboration, there is creativity. Collaborative creativity centers on experiencing the
creative process as a collaborative group. (Think: teamwork.) In order to experience
these processes together, group members must have an equal understanding of the
creative process, methods for establishing ideas, and so forth. In Supporting Creativity
with Awareness in Distributed Collaboration, Faroq, Carroll, and Ganoe suggest that an

Alexis Luscutoff
7
7
awareness of other people’s creative work is key to understanding a “group’s creative
process over time.”10
They define awareness as “an understanding of the activities of
others, which provides a context for one’s own activity.”11
So, when members of a group
are genuinely aware, they can authentically create and collaborate together.
Creative people have certain character traits in common. A team at Herman
Miller investigates the qualities of creative people and creative work in their paper,
Patterns of Creative Work. They list “a few essential facts” of creative people, including:
• “super creative people do not follow rules. They follow ideas…[and] do not settle
for what is given.”12
• “creative people are self starters…[who] feel most comfortable sharing and
developing ideas in informal and cordial interactions.”13
• “Creative people thrive in the intersections of work, life, and play. They are
constantly time shifting and place shifting to follow the flow of an idea and
leverage their energy highs.”14
According to Michael A. West, author of Innovation Implementation in Work Teams,
“innovative individuals are both creative and innovative (i.e. they don’t just have creative
ideas, they also try to implement them).”15
He calls innovation “the introduction of new
and improved ways of doing things.”16
Therefore, creative people can cross the border
to innovation when they do something with their ideas. When creative people work with
innovative people, this implementation is more likely for the group. And if a group of
creative people collaborates in a space them helps them to do things with their ideas,
innovation is a realistic possibility.
Creative people work best in creative environments. Carleton et. al, authors of
Patterns of Creative Work, suggest creative people “need multiple spaces to
accommodate multiple moods and activities – to be inspired, to connect, and to
execute. Their environments shape perceptions, which determine behavior and

Alexis Luscutoff
8
8
mindset.”17
Because creative people are out of the box thinkers, they need literal and
figurative space to explore their imaginative ideas. They need a relaxed environment
where they can work, play, relax, and reenergize. Moreover, the authors of Patterns of
Creative Work highlight the need for “changing stimuli for surprise and inspiration.”18
So,
creative individuals do best when a space makes room for possibilities and gives them a
template for finding their inspiration.
The Meaning of Space
In order to understand how creative people work best in certain types of spaces,
it is first important to understand the meaning of space, how space is constructed, and
how spaces can influence behavior. I will start by illustrating how individuals understand
space, next I will outline the different components of space, and then I will discuss the
characteristics of collaboration spaces that help people work together.
Architecture creates the structure that creates space. Architectural theorist
August Schmarsow calls space an “intuited form” that “consists of the residues of
sensory experience to which the muscular sensations of our body, the sensitivity of our
skin, and the structure of our body all contribute.”19
In other words, we perceive the
characteristics of a space based on our sensory perceptions of it. We create space
when we feel the space. Based on this understanding, spaces are created by the
meaning that people apply to them during physical experience. A space’s physical
attributes and atmosphere also influence how people interpret it. Mark Wigley, author of
The Architecture of Atmosphere understands atmosphere as “produced by the physical
form. It is some kind of sensuous emission of sound, light, heat, smell, and moisture; a
swirling climate of intangible effects generated by a stationary object.”20
Objects within a

Alexis Luscutoff
9
9
space therefore influence how people feel about a space and consequently how people
interact with the space itself..
The way a space looks and feels also send signals that impact the behavior of
the people within it. Scott Doorley and Scott Witthoft, the authors of Make Space: How
to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration, argue “we feel and internalize what space
tells us about how to work.”21
For example, colors, textures, shapes, types of furniture,
furniture arrangement, lighting, walkways, and storage space are all spatial indicators
that signal to people what kind of behavior is expected in a space. For example, if you
see boxes full of children’s books on the floor next to bean bags and pillows, you know
this space is designed for children’s story time. As a result, these indicators also
suggest how people may engage with each other. Moreover, Doorley and Witthoft write,
“space transmits culture.”22
So, people’s responses to spatial indicators shape not only
how people interact with each other, but they also color general behavioral expectations
among coworkers. In doing so, they reflect a general tone for interpersonal interaction
and individual and group work.
The Characteristics of Space
Together, the characteristics of a space transmit signals for behavior, culture,
and values. Broadly construed, the characteristics of a space can be thought of as
divided into four categories: spatial divisions, surfaces, seating, and tools.
Spatial divisions are zonal boundaries that are used to signal different behaviors
or activities. A spatial division can be created by visual cues that distinguish one area
from another, like a wall, a change in flooring, or a sign. Some spatial divisions create
visual and acoustic privacy, while some establish only acoustic privacy (e.g a private

Alexis Luscutoff
10
10
room with transparent glass walls), and others create neither visual nor acoustic privacy
and instead create symbolic divisions between individuals. Thresholds are the
crossover points between spatial divisions, or “transitional elements that signify
change.”23
They are important to spatial divisions because they indicate a shift in event,
activity, or behavior between zones.
Surfaces are “planes within a space” upon which people typically place objects
and accomplish tasks.24
While we often think of surfaces on a horizontal plane (ex.
desk, coffee table), surfaces can be horizontal, vertical, or anything in between. Ted
Krueger, author of The Architecture of Extreme Environments, adds, “the ability
continuously and dynamically to reconfigure the spatial relationships engendered by the
surfaces in response to changes in the social dynamics of the activity or conversations
may be critical to the maintenance of interpersonal relationships.”25
So, while surfaces
can be a place to get work done, they also contribute to how people develop
relationships and physically engage with a space.
Surfaces send visual and physical cues that indicate how people are meant to
use a space. When people notice a surface – its material, height, shape, size, mobility,
and malleability – they modify their behavior to fit what the surface tells them. The
physical relationship between surfaces also modifies how people position themselves
relative to each other. For instance, in the elementary school classroom, when we see
desks and a chalkboard we know that the students will take notes while they listen to
the teacher, who stands at the front of the room.
Seating is just that: where people sit. It can be used for sitting around a table, but
it can also be used to divide space, to create shapes (ex. sitting in a circle, rows, etc.),

Alexis Luscutoff
11
11
and create levels within a space. Seating can be a tool for gaging comfort and for
placing people next to their work surfaces, but it also shapes people’s physical
relationships with each other more than any other aspect of a space. By indicating
where people sit and which direction they face, seating signals the interpersonal
interaction that will take place. Moreover, seating’s mobility and malleability (or lack
thereof) contributes to interpersonal relationships because it gives people the ability to
reposition themselves and therefore interact with each other in new ways.
Tools are the most varied aspects of a space that people use to generate ideas
and engage with each other. Doorley and Witthoft consider tools the “useful things that
fill up a space.”26
Tools are any objects people use to help them work, create ideas, and
keep track of their ideas. Depending on the field, they may be any number of things, but
in a traditional office environment, tools include writing implements, white boards,
projectors, notepads, sticky notes, paper clips, etc. Storage space for personal
belongings, like cubbies or lockers, and for office documents, like file folders, are
common office tools, as well.
What are Collaborative Workspaces?
Workspaces are environments designed for professional work. Collaborative
workspaces (also called collaboration spaces) are designed with the intention that
people will work collaboratively in them. The term “collaborative workspace” is an
umbrella term with affiliated terms based on the type of work done in a space. For
example, hacker spaces such as the Hacker Dojo and the Garage at Google are built
for computer programmers and maker spaces are built for do-it-yourself and tech

Alexis Luscutoff
12
12
related projects. All spaces within the collaborative umbrella share design principles for
group work.
Collaborative workspaces are unique because they are designed to assist in
leveling status relationships. Unlike in a hierarchical structure, which differentiates
between higher and lower status individuals, a collaborative structure typically functions
according to the heterarchical model. It puts people on the same literal and figurative
plane, so everyone can generate ideas together, and so everyone’s ideas carry equal
weight. Moreover, collaborative workspaces generally consist of open, communal
spaces that enforce a heterarchical social structure. Rather than dividing people into
separate cubicles, collaborative work paces put everyone in the same open room or
bullpen, with access to the same set of shared tools, thereby establishing equal
ownership of a space and further equalizing status relationships. While work groups
may have their own tables, which are often arranged in rows against the walls of the
bullpen, no table is so unique as to indicate that one group is more important than
another. Furthermore, all individuals have equal visibility with each other, which
contributes to a “we’re all in this together” atmosphere. This process of leveling status
contributes to the idea that the environment is a safe space, which allows people to feel
comfortable generating ideas freely.
Collaborative workspaces usually have a casual, yet bustling ambiance, which
lets people feel comfortable exchanging ideas in the space. The casual ambiance is
characteristic of what Ray Oldenburg calls third place.
The third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that
host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gathers of
individuals beyond the realms of home and work…the temper and tenor of the
third place is upbeat; it is cheerful. The purpose is to enjoy the company of one’s

Alexis Luscutoff
13
13
fellow human beings and to delight in the novelty of their character, not to wallow
in pity over misfortunes.27
In keeping with this third place atmosphere, the openness of collaborative workspaces
also contributes to the bustling interactivity that is key to collaboration. Steven Johnson,
author of Where Good Ideas Come From, suggests, “good ideas usually come from the
collision of smaller hunches, so that they form something bigger than themselves.”28
Laura Moorhead, former editor at IDEO and current doctoral student in the Learning
Sciences & Technology Design program at Stanford, suggests that collaboration spaces
facilitate these collisions because, “in open spaces, you’re expected to move around…if
you’re away from your desk, you’re doing something interesting.”29
So, by maintaining
this fluid, third place atmosphere, collaborative spaces encourage interpersonal
interaction that builds empathy and camaraderie between coworkers. Furthermore, this
third place atmosphere helps establish bonds of trust between coworkers, which help
them feel safer expressing ideas and more inclined to listen to other’s ideas as well.
Collaboration tools are key to the effectiveness of collaborative spaces. Because
collaboration often brings together individuals from differing fields, it is important that
each is able to express his or her ideas in ways that are understandable to the whole
group. Mamykina, Candy, and Edmonds suggest, “Tools that support the articulation of
creative ideas and allow for better exchange between different disciplines can eliminate
some of the barriers in interdisciplinary collaboration.”30
Documentation tools like writing
surfaces (ex. glass tables, whiteboards), post it notes, and electronic notebooks, are
central to collaborative work because they help diverse groups “devis[e] a shared
language” and also make individuals within the group feel like their thoughts matter to
the collective whole, so they have more incentive to keep producing ideas.31

Alexis Luscutoff
14
14
Retreat spaces are an important counterpart to the bullpen in collaboration
spaces. While an open space for group work is essential to the collaborative
environment, so are retreat spaces for quiet, individual work.32
Scott Witthoft, designer,
lecturer, and co-director of the Environments Collaborative at Stanford’s d.school,
comments, when you’re collaborating and in a high energy place, “having a place to just
hide and sneak way to actually becomes even more critical.”33
David Kelley, Founder of
IDEO and Stanford’s d.school, and current Mechanical Engineering Professor at
Stanford, calls these retreats “enclaves with special purposes.”34
A retreat space may
be a conference room or a phone booth defined by its own walls, but it may also be a
zone within a greater open space. These zones are usually tucked away at the side of a
room and their furniture is often a lower level than the main bull pen area, which usually
has tables at a traditional desk height. Eating spaces, for instance, are often defined by
bar height tables with bar stools, while low-key spaces often resemble a traditional living
room with sofas and coffee tables. And although levels are involved, no zone is
particularly notable, so one space is not higher status than another.
The Spaces I Observed
The following are descriptions of the collaboration spaces I observed. They
reveal the four general characteristics of space that I identified (spatial divisions,
surfaces, seating, tools), and the unique components that form collaboration spaces.
IDEO, Palo Alto
David Kelley and Bill Moggridge founded IDEO in 1991. IDEO is a global design
firm that uses a collaborative, human centered design approach to innovation and
problem solving.35
The company encourages design thinking in their creative process:

Alexis Luscutoff
15
15
The design thinking process is best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces
rather than a sequence of orderly steps. There are three spaces to keep in mind:
inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Inspiration is the problem or
opportunity that motivates the search for solutions. Ideation is the process of
generating, developing, and testing ideas. Implementation is the path that leads
from the project stage into people’s lives.36
Prototyping is key to the design thinking process. The spaces in IDEO were built to
facilitate design thinking, but also to encourage collaboration between coworkers.
According to Katie Clark, Graphic Designer and Digital Marketing Lead at IDEO, 70-
80% of work at IDEO is project based. Each project has a multidisciplinary team that
collaborates for time periods ranging from two weeks to one year.37
Tools and seating in IDEO’s lobby set a playful tone from the first moment one
walks inside. A cheerful receptionist greets visitors and offers them candy from glass
jars and self serve refreshments. Rather than traditional workplace sofas, the seating
and surfaces in IDEO’s lobby include a round yurt with a circular sketchpad and colored
pencils inside. The lobby has a few bar height tables, as well. And at the end of the
room is an old prototype that offers tickets for free play.
I was also able to see IDEO’s kitchen and Toy Lab in the building adjacent to the
lobby. Brendan Boyle, Partner at IDEO, board member for the National Institute for
Play, and Consulting Associate Professor at Stanford’s d.school, commented that
IDEO’s Palo Alto office has only one kitchen, so people from all over the company
gather here to interact, exchange ideas, and create relationships. According to Katie
Clark, IDEO offers breakfast every day and food specials a few days a week as tools to
facilitate conversation and spontaneity between coworkers.
The Toy Lab, just upstairs from the kitchen, is where brains at IDEO work
collaboratively to invent “toy and game experiences.”38
They use “playfulness to design

Alexis Luscutoff
16
16
fun, inspiring experiences for kids and [apply] elements of delight to more ‘serious’
experiences for adults.”39
The Toy Lab’s entrance is framed by cardboard cutouts of lab
prototypes and a display of the lab’s successful creations including Barbie dolls and
action figures. In addition to creating an ambiance of childlike playfulness, the
entrance’s grandiosity serves as a literal and symbolic spatial division between those
who are and are not allowed inside. Like the traditional collaborative environment, the
Toy Lab is one big room with different work zones and a conference room attached. The
main room is lined with private and personalized desks, one of which has a notable
collection of disco balls hanging above it. In the middle of the room are bar style tables
with interchangeable surfaces that also serve as dry erase boards. At the back of this
main room is a shop station with communal building and craft tools, and just outside the
lab’s entrance are a video making and photocopying zones.
Building 700 is one of the main buildings at IDEO Palo Alto, which houses a
variety of private offices, private project spaces, and open space. Project spaces line
the edge of the building and surround an open, bullpen workspace. These project
spaces have glass walls, which serve as tools for visual openness and auditory privacy.
The bullpen has two distinct work zones. The individual work zone consists of small,
shared desks (with computer monitors) pushed up against each other. People at IDEO
must rent individual desks and rotate between them, so, Katie Clark comments, “you
end up sitting next to new people all the time.”40
The group workspace is on an elevated
plane covered in AstroTurf, defined by open worktables and a VW van-turned-
conference space. This change in flooring and furniture helps create a spatial division
between individual and group work zones. While some find this environment

Alexis Luscutoff
17
17
invigorating and ripe with ideas, Laura Moorhead complains that this type of space can
get distracting, so when she needs to finish a project she often puts ear plugs in as a
signal for people not to speak to her. And when in need of physical and auditory privacy,
there are also phone booths and pods where individuals can have private phone
conversations.
The Garage at Google, Mountain View
The Garage at Google Headquarters in Mountain View is a collaboration space
designed for computer programmers. The space is consistent the Google’s philosophy,
“to create the happiest, most productive workplace in the world.”41
It is open to Googlers
at any time and it can be reserved for project work, hackathons (collaborative
programming events), and other special events. Every Friday the Garage hosts Beer
and Demos, where Googlers demo their work over company-supplied refreshments.
Mamie Rheingold, Program Manager at Google and one of the space’s designers,
informed me that the space was designed according to the Garage theme because
Google, tapping into a long history of Silicon Valley start-ups, was born in a garage. Its
garage-inspired lexicon is a tool that has shaped the activity within the space by giving it
a spirit of tinkering and experimentation.
The Garage resembles a warehouse with its high ceilings and pressed cement
floors. Rather than building divisions into the space, they instead chose to keep it open,
with different work zones. One side of the room contains a row of bar style tables with
dry erase surfaces and industrial style bar stools, and the other contains a collection of
wheeled office seating and desks with computer monitors attached. The Garage uses

Alexis Luscutoff
18
18
the garage theme as a labeling tool. Each moveable desk is labeled with a parking
space number, which corresponds to a desk parking space labeled on the floor.
Rheingold commented that one of her key questions in designing the space was, “how
do you empower people to rearrange the space and then also know they’ll return” things
to their original place?42
This mobility reflects a flexibility that is key to the vision for the
Garage, and the parking spaces help keep the space organized after people finish using
it.
Each wall of the Garage has tools for different collaborative work. Three of the
space’s four walls are painted with whiteboard paint, one of which serves multiple
purposes: whiteboard, projector screen, and the backdrop for an ice cream sundae
station, as I observed during my first visit. It also includes a set of the same foam cubes
used at the d.school, and an authentic gong for playfully keeping people on schedule
during hackathons. Another wall holds shop tools, tv screens, white boards, and carts
with collaboration tools like construction paper, electrical chords, and duct tape.
The Garage contains one retreat room that is defined by an enormous sliding
wooden door. The room is still a work in progress and it does not have an exact
purpose yet, but it contains a conference table and couple television monitors at one
end.
ME310 Design Loft at Stanford
The ME310 Design Loft is located in room 204 in Stanford’s Mechanical
Engineering building 550. It is the home of a year-long class of students who work on
corporate projects. The class consists of 27 students, broken into three and four person
project teams, which collaborate with partner teams at universities across the world.

Alexis Luscutoff
19
19
Different corporations (ex. Volvo, Audi, Clariant) financially sponsor the teams and give
them an open problem-solving prompt. Although this space technically houses a class
at Stanford, the room is less of a learning space, and more of a project workspace
consistent with maker spaces.
This room looks like it is half playground, half workspace. Upon entering the
space, one sees an array of colorful decorations, which are tools for creating ambiance.
They include hot pink and turquoise hand-crafted snowflakes hanging from white
wooden beams, giant green leaves from IKEA’s children’s section hovering over desks,
and bicycle prototypes balanced on beams overhead. A Nintendo 64 and a rainbow-
colored hammock also create a play zone in the center of the room. However, office
furniture, including desktop computer monitors, adjustable office desks, office chairs,
and tables lining the walls of the room (each project team has its own table), signal that
this room is meant for work. In addition, the kitchen-turned-shop in the corner
represents a mixture of surfaces and tools that is consistent with the character of the
Loft.
The Loft’s crash-pad character makes people feel comfortable working there.
Although teams have their own tables, the center of the room is a free for all and all
tools in this space, including white boards, shop tools, electronics, and so on, are
communal.43
One project group I spoke with commented that the space “feels like
home…the fact that I can do whatever the fuck I want in here is really useful.”44
Tyler
Bushnell, TA for the ME310 class, noted how useful the Loft’s variety is to the group’s
experimental work ethic and commented that it gives “hints of things to come;
possibilities.”45
And as exciting as the space is, Tyler notes that he “hates doing problem

Alexis Luscutoff
20
20
sets in here” because although the Loft’s variety can be liberating, its general
messiness can also be distracting.46
The space also hosts a weekly SUPS, their version
of a happy hour, which generally takes place at the bar height, blob shaped table. In
doing so, the Loft harnesses the power of refreshments and an unusual surface as tools
to create a relaxed atmosphere.
d.school: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford
David Kelley founded Stanford’s d.school in 2004. In an interview with the San
Francisco Chronicle, Professor Kelley said of the d.school, “We designed this space to
be less precious than most buildings you’ll see on campus…We want it to feel like a
place where students and faculty can have fun and be comfortable – like a living room.
A living room where you can spill paint on the floor.”47
The d.school is connected to
Stanford’s Mechanical Engineering building and contains a variety of collaboration
spaces that are of use to many different work groups.
The inconspicuous, glass entrance to the d.school opens to a foyer. This liminal
space contains metal seating in the shape of sofas and lounge chairs, and also flat
screen TVs, and bar style tables with stools beside them. Occasionally the d.school
hosts events with food and drinks here. The rest of the d.school is consistent with this
liminal space in terms of its “visual openness.”48
Most of the d.school is made of open
workspace and meeting rooms with transparent glass walls, which are tools that create
visual openness and acoustic privacy. This openness also applies to people’s
relationships with the space and their peers. The Bay Studio, for instance, duals as a
project area and liminal space that leads to meeting rooms, so people are encouraged
to interact with each other throughout the day. Also, many of the tools within the Bay

Alexis Luscutoff
21
21
Studio, like hanging white boards on wheels and sticky notes, are communal and also
on display so people can engage with what other people are working on. Foam cubes
also dual as tools and seating. They are “easily adapted to imaginative uses…[and] can
be used equally well for low seating during short conversations as for simulating
elements of 3-D space at scale.”49
The d.school is full of seating such as this, which is
just comfortable enough for brief conversations, but just uncomfortable enough that
people will want to stand up and get work done after a short while.
In addition to open spaces, the d.school has secluded classrooms, project
rooms, and offices where people can work alone. Classrooms are filled with mobile
tools, seating, and surfaces that are impermanent and can transform the room into any
arrangement. Some secluded spaces are arranged like traditional office rooms. Others,
like the private workspaces for permanent faculty, which are attached to the Bay Studio,
are distinguished by their change in flooring and sliding, dry-erase doors. Some contain
traditional desks, while others contain futon seating and bar style tables, but all contain
prototyping surfaces like whiteboards and sticky notes. Some rooms contain signs with
instructions for behavior, like the following sign for the Prototyping Room, as well.
Prototyping Room Rules:
1. Be safe
2. Do NOT take tools from room
3. Talk to your Teaching Team or d.school staff for help & additional resources
The d.school also has “Reset” signs that give instructions for putting rooms back in
order when people are finished using them.
PARISOMA, San Francisco
PARISOMA calls itself “a space where ideas meet execution. We are open-
sourcing the entrepreneurial journey to help startups turn their ideas into sustainable

Alexis Luscutoff
22
22
companies.”50
PARISOMA has worked with organizations including Wikipedia,
Evernote, Twitter, AT&T, and Microsoft.51
The space is open to anyone doing individual
or group work, and it offers special services to members who wish to reserve desk
space or meeting rooms.
PARISOMA’s entrance is only visible to those who know it is there. It does not
have a sign outside, but rather a street number concealed by a few trees and an “open”
sign just as visitors enter the space. Beyond a miniature foyer with an events sign is a
bullpen zone filled with ping pong tables that have been turned into desk surfaces, and
sleek office chair on wheels. When ping pong tables are pushed to the side of the room,
the bullpen transforms into a presentation space. The bullpen is surrounded by private
meeting rooms on one side, a conference room with transparent glass doors on
another, and a small kitchen with bar style tables on a third. One zone in the corner of
the space looks like a miniature living room with a few sofas, a coffee table, and a
bookshelf with shared play tools like books and board games. There is a general
atmosphere of quiet focus on individual projects, but chit-chat is acceptable.
The bullpen serves as the courtyard to this two-story space. The upstairs
appears more collaborative than the bullpen downstairs. Group worktables and desks
line the windows and a balcony overlooks the bullpen activity below. People appear to
have reserved private desks and some make themselves comfortable by sitting on
exercise balls. There is an accepted level of group chatter upstairs and a greater feeling
of collaboration than there is downstairs, because spatial zones are more condensed
and have shared whiteboards. Those working individually may retreat to individual work
zones like small sofas, a phone booth, or meeting rooms.

Alexis Luscutoff
23
23
Hacker Dojo, Mountain View
The Hacker Dojo is designed for computer programmers and has been the
primary workspace for many Silicon Valley startups, including Pinterest. Its website calls
it a “community center” that is “1/3 coworking space, 1/3 events venue, 1/3 big social
living room” that “lend[s] itself to be a useful place to throw classes, host parties,
brainstorm, and hang out.”52
The first thing someone sees when entering the Dojo is a
tattered table with a sign in computer and a list of “Dojo Policies” for conduct, including
“1. Don’t be a dick…2. Keep the Place Nice…[and] 8. 100% Communal.”53
The Dojo includes a variety of spatial divisions. The kitchen and private work
rooms are separate from the rest of the space. On the other hand, large work rooms
have similar divisions between group work areas, private work areas, and game areas,
which are distinguished by changes in seating. However, despite the Dojo’s policies, the
space is quite tattered (wood peeling off tables, old sofas, paint peeling off the walls).
Also, despite categorizing itself as a collaboration space, I noted, “the sense is not
collaborative. It’s to be quiet and ambiguous. I think I’m good as long as I don’t draw
attention to myself.”54
The only people working in groups were inside conference rooms
that contained white boards and dry erase markers. Most people in large workspaces
were working at computers by themselves.

Alexis Luscutoff
24
24
PHOTOS
VW Van, IDEO, Palo Alto (photo credit to Katie Clark)
Yurt, Sketch Pad, and Colored Pencils,
IDEO, Palo Alto (photo credit to Katie
Clark)

Alexis Luscutoff
25
25
Tire Sign and Tools on Wheels, The Garage, Google, Mountain View
Dry Erase Wall, Foam Cubes, and Projector Screens, The Garage, Google, Mountain
View

Alexis Luscutoff
26
26
SUPS Table, ME310 Loft, Stanford University
ME310 Loft, Stanford University

Alexis Luscutoff
27
27
Brainstorming Tools, d.school, Stanford University (photo credit to Stanford d.school)
The Bay Studio, d.school, Stanford University (photo credit to Stanford d.school)

Alexis Luscutoff
28
28
Hacker Dojo, Mountain View (photo credit to HackerDojo.com)
OPEN SPACE, PARISOMA, San
Francisco (photo credit to
PARISOMA.com/space/#open)

Alexis Luscutoff
29
29
Let’s Talk Play
As I previously described, creativity is a component of collaboration that involves
establishing new, useful ideas. The workspaces I observe above demand collaboration
and creativity. For example, Craig Nevill-Manning, Google’s engineering director in
Manhattan, commented in a New York Times interview, “Google’s success depends on
innovation and collaboration.”55
So, how is it that people at places like Google and IDEO
are so creative? The answer is, they help people play.
Play is a link between collaboration and creativity. The collaborative workspaces
I observe above harness play and translate it into physical space. These spaces help
people collaborate and be creative by helping them play together. In the following
portion of my paper, I will discuss play as an activity and a theoretical concept, and
examine aspects of improvisational theater that help people interact playfully. I also
consider play as a catalyst for collaboration and explore how play appears in the design
of the collaboration spaces I observe above.
Play is often defined according to Johan Huizinga’s original definition from his
book, Homo Ludens, or “Man the Player.” Huizinga defines play as:
Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might call it a free activity
standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the
same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected
with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its
own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an
orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to
surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the
common world by disguise or other means.56
Huizinga thus views play an organized, non-zero-sum, social activity that is
distinguishable from everyday life. Roger Callois, author of Man, Play, and Games, finds
Huizinga’s definition “meaningful,” but “at the same time too broad and too narrow.”57

Alexis Luscutoff
30
30
He amends Huizinga’s understanding of play by discarding the “affinity which exists
between play and the secret or mysterious” and adding the possibility of “games” and
the exchange if property in play.58
According to Callois, play is:
1. Free: in which playing is not obligatory; if it were, it would at once lose its
attractive and joyous quality as diversion;
2. Separate: circumscribed within limits of space and time, defined and fixed in
advance;
3. Uncertain: the course of which cannot be determined, nor the result attained
beforehand, and some latitude for innovations being left to the player’s initiative;
4. Unproductive: creating neither goods, nor wealth, nor new elements of any
kind; and, except for the exchange of property among the players, ending in a
situation identical to that prevailing at the beginning of the game;
5. Governed by rules: under conventions that suspend ordinary laws, and for the
moment establish new legislation, which alone counts;
6. Make-believe: accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality or of a
free unreality, as against real life.59
Although Callois’s definition supplements Huizinga’s, both definitions represent two
variations of play, which reflect a distinction between finite and infinite games. James P.
Carse argues in his book, Finite and Infinite Games, “there are at least two kinds of
games,” finite and infinite.60
He writes, “a finite game is played for the purpose of
winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”61
I propose that the
collaboration process is an infinite game. When team members collaborate on a project,
they strive toward productivity and group morale, and play a game opposite
unproductivity and self-doubt. As Herman Miller and Institute for the Future comment, in
collaboration “someone does not have to lose in order for there to be a winner.”62
So,
when a team collaborates effectively and completes a task, the whole group wins their
own infinite collaboration game.

Alexis Luscutoff
31
31
There are three components to understanding play as it relates to creativity and
collaboration: the meaning of play, the characteristics of playfulness, and the qualities
that make a playful person. Carse suggests,
To be playful is not to be trivial or frivolous, or to act as though nothing of
consequence will happen. On the contrary, when we are playful with each other
we relate as free persons, and the relationship is open to surprise; everything
that happens is of consequence…to be playful is to allow for possibility whatever
the cost to oneself…63
By supplementing play with playfulness, Carse suggests that play may not always be
separate from one’s reality, as Huizinga and Callois suggest, but integral to one’s
reality. Playfulness is thus a pattern of behavior that one shapes within himself, and
applies to his interactions with others.
When principles of play and games are applied to collaboration, they can help
people behave in a state of playfulness. Founder of the National Institute For Play, Dr.
Stuart Brown, suggests in his book, Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the
Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul, that playfulness and creativity go hand in hand.
He writes, “creative people know the rules of the game, but they are open to
improvisation and serendipity.”64
So, a reality grounded in playfulness is actually an
integral part of the creative mindset.
Benefits of Play
In his book, Play, Dr. Stuart Brown also emphasizes the necessity of play in
human life, how it benefits our lives, and how it improves our sociability. Ming Li Chai,
Strategic Design Researcher at Microsoft, finds that when people work collaboratively,
they ask themselves, “how am I going to look ok and not look stupid?”65
Brown suggests
that play frees us of this insecurity because it helps us build empathy. He considers play

Alexis Luscutoff
32
32
“the essence of freedom,” for when we play, “we stop worrying about whether we look
good or awkward…we stop thinking about the fact that we are thinking.”66
Play also
helps to establish group morale by making people get to know each other in a relaxed
emotional setting. So, Brown says, “The ability to play is critical not only to being
happy, but also sustaining relationships and being a creative, innovative person.”67
Play also develops trust between teammates because it encourages them to rely
on each other. When people play as a team, they must support their teammates and
trust that their teammates will do the same. When they have faith in this teammate
relationship, people also make themselves vulnerable knowing other people will support
them. Carse writes that infinite play is particularly valuable to establishing trust between
players, because they must be open to what may happen in the future:
[Play invites] a safe, emotional connection…[and] because infinite players
prepare themselves to be surprised by the future, they play in complete
openness. It is not an openness as in candor, but an openness as in
vulnerability… The infinite player does not expect only to be amused by surprise,
but to be transformed by it.68
Once people feel open as individuals, they are able to trust others as players, creators,
and collaborators. This can be particularly helpful in a brainstorming context. It allows a
group to “focus on quantity of ideas rather than quality,” and opens doors to surprises
and possibilities.”69
So, when people play, they relinquish themselves of the fear that
they will look stupid, because they embrace the element of surprise and allow
themselves to be transformed in the process.
Improvisational Theater as Play
In the mid 20th
century, drama instructor Keith Johnstone developed foundational
methods for improvisational theater grounded in spontaneity, narrative, and

Alexis Luscutoff
33
33
interpersonal relationships.1
Improv is a form of spontaneous theater, which has specific
rules for playing the game, and is generally practiced with other players in a rehearsal
or performance setting. The act of improvising is often called playing and improvisers
are often called players. Hence, improvisational theater (improv) is a form infinite play.
Improv is based on a group of tenets. The first and most important tenet is saying
yes to offers. In his book, Impro: Improvisation and the Theater, Keith Johnstone calls
“anything an actor does an ‘offer’. Each offer can either be accepted, or blocked. If you
yawn your partner can yawn too, and therefore accept your offer.”70
When an improviser
says yes to an offer, he accepts the offer, and from there a scene is built. The opposite
of accepting an offer is blocking, or saying no. In her book, Improv Wisdom: Don’t
Prepare, Just Show Up, retired Stanford drama teacher and founder of the Stanford
Improvisors, Patricia Ryan Madson, calls saying yes an “affirmation” and entry into
world of action, possibility, [and] adventure.”71
Yes is foundational to improv because it
builds trust and keeps us safe “in knowing your partner will go along with whatever idea
you present.”72
Then, when we add “and” to saying yes, we have the fundamental
improvisational concept, yes, and… wherein we accept other’s ideas, add our own, and
create something together that we could not create alone.
All aspects of improv are about fueling collaborative positivity and interpreting
every moment as an opportunity. Madson outlines thirteen maxims of improv that
encourage individual and collaborative freedom:
1. Say yes
2. Don’t prepare
3. Just show up
1
Viola Spolin has also established improvisational techniques grounded in physicality.
Refer to Improvisation for the Theater for more information.

Alexis Luscutoff
34
34
4. Start anywhere
5. Be average
6. Pay attention
7. Face the facts
8. Stay on course
9. Wake up to the gifts
10.Make mistakes
11.Act now
12.Take care of each other
13.Enjoy the ride73
While all of these may not be literally applicable to all walks of life, together they are
meant to encourage improvisers to fearlessly plunge into the unknown, prepared to
embrace failures as positive ways to learn and progress. In addition to saying yes,
making mistakes and taking care of each other are especially useful for collaboration
because they help players feel safe generating ideas. When the group agrees it is okay
to make mistakes, players (i.e. collaborators) are more willing to take risks and generate
wild ideas. Moreover, because players are guaranteed the support of the group, every
idea is a good idea, ripe with possibility for growth. Similarly, Johnstone remarks, “the
improviser has to understand that his first skill lies in releasing his partner’s
imagination.”74
In other words, the improviser is there to make his partner and her ideas
look good. Ultimately, when a collaborator plays according to these rules, she frees
herself from insecurity by remaining aware of things outside herself and acting for the
betterment of the whole group.
Status relationships pervade through every aspect of improvisation. When
improvisers play with each other, they inherently play status games. Johnstone
describes status as “something one ‘does…[it] is basically territorial.’”75
Although status
can indicate people’s relative importance to each other, in improv status primarily

Alexis Luscutoff
35
35
reflects how people relate and exchange power with each other. Johnstone says these
“status transactions continue all the time…[in a] see-saw,” and in doing so, they
establish the dynamic of relationships.76
Acquaintances become friends when they agree to play status games together. If
I take an acquaintance an early morning cup of tea, I might say, ‘Did you have a
good night?’ or something equally ‘neutral’, the status being established by voice
and posture and eye contact and so on. If I take a cup of tea to a friend then I
may say, ‘Get up, you old cow’, or ‘Your Highness’s tea’, pretending to raise or
lower status.77
Status also depends on physicality. Any body movement can manipulate a status
relationship.
Body positions assert dominance or submission by controlling space…High-
status players…will allow their space to flow into other people. [They tend to
stand taller and take up more space.] Low status players will avoid letting their
space flow into other people. Kneeling, bowing, and prostrating one-self are all
ritualized low status ways of shutting off your space.78
The manner in which people shift their body language and relationship with their
physical space reflects status transactions that indicate the character of their
relationships with each other. The shape of the space itself can also change status
relationships, by manipulating people’s body movements or helping them to manipulate
their own movements. People who have more space to themselves, particularly in a
special location (ex. the corner office, the head of the table; sprawled on a couch),
express higher status, while people with less space (ex. a cubicle; sitting on the sofa’s
arm) express a lower status.
Collaborative work environments are most effective when co-collaborators start
from a position of equal status. From there, people play friendly status games. Although
the status exchanges will naturally ebb and flow, as they should in a playful
environment, it is important for the see-saw not to remain on one side for too long. Once

Alexis Luscutoff
36
36
one person out-statuses another for too long in a collaborative work environment, the
level of vulnerability in the group is out of balance and people are no longer in a position
to engage freely. In a situation where a default high status person like a CEO is
collaborating with a low status person, the CEO can maintain a playful balance of the
status see-saw by actively lowering his own status every so often. David Kelley is
known to lower his status in collaborative environments at IDEO and in the d.school by
leaning on desks and standing among his co-collaborators as “one of the guys.” By
behaving this way, the high status individual will not outbalance the see-saw and will
make others feel safer in the process.2
The Presence of Play in the Spaces I Observed
Now that we have established the meaning of play as a tool for collaboration and
creativity, we can integrate play into the greater discussion of collaboration spaces.
Bearing in mind the meaning of space, the characteristics of collaboration spaces, and
the descriptions of collaborative workspaces I observed, I will now explore how play is a
key component in the design of effective collaboration spaces. In the following section
of the paper, I recall the four characteristics of a workspace (spatial divisions, surfaces,
seating, tools) and show how they transmit signals for play in the collaboration spaces I
observed.
2
Note, however, that high status is no better than low status. These are simply two
ways to express physical relationships that influence how individuals relate to each
other.

Alexis Luscutoff
37
37
Spatial Divisions and Play
Spatial divisions create boundaries between different zones for behavior. Each
space I observed contains literal and/or figurative spatial divisions between structured,
playful, and relaxed work zones.
Play zones all serve as healthy counterparts to structured and relaxed work
zones. For example, the ME310 has its Nintendo 64 and hammock area and the
Garage at Google has its shop wall and dry erase walls. When these spaces give
collaborators a place to play, they give them a place to rediscover their creative
inspiration.
By creating different zones for behavior, the collaboration spaces I observed
create multiple opportunities for status play and imaginative exploration. First, when
these collaboration spaces create different zones for behavior, they create the
“boundaries of time and space” that Huizinga and Callois consider essential
components of a play space.79
Moreover, these spatial divisions are consistent with
Johnstone’s suggestion that status is territorial. When a space establishes different
zones for behavior, it adjusts people’s physicality and state of mind so they can play in
new ways. When coworkers shift from a structured work zone to a playful zone, like they
do in the ME310 loft when they move from the team work tables to the Nintendo 64,
people change their status dynamic by shifting to a new mode of behavior. In doing so,
colleagues are able to make new offers, create ideas, and collaborate together.
The spaces I observe show how thresholds can serve as spatial divisions that
help people transition into states of play. When Huizinga and Callois suggest that play
requires boundaries, they indicate that people need to cross through those boundaries

Alexis Luscutoff
38
38
in order to start playing. And when people cross through these boundaries, they cross
through thresholds that correspond to spatial divisions. As previously mentioned,
Doorley and Witthoft call thresholds “transitional elements that signal a changing event”
from one zone to another.80
They are visual cues that help people shift into an open,
playful mindset. We see this, for instance, through changes in flooring in IDEO’s
building 700 and the d.school’s Bay Studio, and through the play decorations at the
entrance to the IDEO’s Toy Lab. By engaging in the ritual of crossing thresholds
between zones, collaborators in these spaces are primed to make themselves
vulnerable, as Carse indicates, and play in a different way. The more they engage in
this ritual, the safer they feel modifying their behavior and playing with each other.
As we will see, the interaction between surfaces, seating, and tools helps to
create these thresholds and distinguish between different spatial zones.
Surfaces and Play
Surfaces help to indicate how individuals are meant to use a space. Their design
and placement within a space contribute to status relationships and often encourage
play in collaboration spaces. In each of the collaboration spaces I observed, the
surfaces in different work zones have unique characteristics that suggest distinct modes
of behavior.
As I note in my observations, the more mobile and malleable surfaces are, the
more they encourage creative thinking, and the more they encourage play between
collaborators. The flexibility of the surfaces in these spaces gives collaborators
permission to play with the spaces however they choose, so they can participate in the
“free activity” that Huizinga and Callois consider essential to play.81
As members of an

Alexis Luscutoff
39
39
ME310 Loft group indicated, because the space is not sophisticated, they feel free and
safe collaborating and creating together, and accomplish more as a result. For example,
some team worktables in the Loft, Toy Lab, and Garage are in dry erase surfaces, and
sometimes teams in the Loft make surfaces from miscellaneous materials as part of
their prototyping process. In addition, the desks with adjustable height in the center of
Loft the space help collaborators play status games by shifting how they physically
relate to each other. Similarly, by bringing collaborators to the same height during
SUPS”in the Loft and Beer and Demos in the Garage, the bar style tables in these
spaces facilitate a figurative “time-out” in the collaboration game.
Surfaces in these collaboration spaces are also playful because they literally and
figuratively present rules to the space’s infinite collaboration game. The dry erase tables
in many of these spaces, and the dry erase walls in the Garage, figuratively encourage
imaginative play and signal that creativity is never off-limits. By specifically serving as
writing surfaces, the dry erase walls at the Garage tell people to be imaginative, playful
kids again. The Garage’s desks and corresponding parking spaces also literally show
rules for the space by indicating where each desk is meant to be. Furthermore, by
giving simple instructions for how to organize the Garage, these parking spaces give
people creative freedom to move the desks around, with the safety that everyone will
use the desks according to the same rules.
As dry erase surfaces and the ping pong tables at PARISOMA indicate,
sometimes surfaces can playful in and of themselves. Although people use these dry
erase boards and ping pong tables as desks, the possibility for doodling and playing
ping pong can help make people feel more playful doing work there. And by calling

Alexis Luscutoff
40
40
attention to the type of table in the space, people are encouraged to, in the improv
sense, notice what is around them. In my experience, simply noticing that PARISOMA
had ping pong tables made me smile and put me in a playful mood.
The concrete floors in many of these spaces also send a message about
imaginative play. With the exception of PARISOMA, which has carpet and wood
flooring, every space had concrete floors, which signaled that the space was not
precious. Just as whiteboard walls in the Garage indicated that people could mark up
the walls freely, concrete flooring suggests that people can play freely, without fear of
wrecking the floor. The surface of the concrete even suggests that people can do work
on the floor if they choose.
So, as these collaboration spaces demonstrate, when a space’s surfaces are
interactive, mobile, and malleable, they encourage the people using the space to
participate in infinite games as they collaborate together.
Seating and Play
Seating tells us where we should orient ourselves and direct our attention, and in
doing so, it indicates who has the most authority in the room. Recall the elementary
school classroom example: all students face the teacher (authority figure) at the front of
the classroom, and this arrangement reinforces the teacher-student relationship. The
seating in the collaboration spaces I observed levels status by modifying people’s height
and orientation, so everyone is at relatively equal status levels.
Most collaboration spaces I observed organize seating such that no part of the
space, and consequently no person, is more important than another. Although most of
these spaces have administrative offices for logistical purposes, their group workspaces

Alexis Luscutoff
41
41
do not grant anyone high status by giving them a “special” seat at the head of the table,
a “special” office, or anything of the sort. Instead, seating in these spaces equalizes
status because it is impermanent and communal, so people have equal ownership of
the space. When everyone sits in the same types of chairs, and they are equally
dispersed around the table, no seat is more important than any other and no person
may express higher status by getting the important seat. PARISOMA levels status in
this way by seating everyone in identical chairs, with identical orientations around
identical ping pong tables. Similarly, although IDEO and the Garage have individual
desks in their bullpens, the group ownership of these desks suggests a communal feel
while also accommodating the realistic need for people to do individual work.
The mobility and communal nature of seating in collaboration spaces also
encourages playfulness and saying yes. By forcing people to pick a new seat and share
their immediate surroundings with new people everyday, these collaboration spaces
prime people for a “yes, and…” mindset the moment they walk into the room. When
they choose a new seat, people say yes to the rules of collaboration, thereby setting
themselves up for the opportunity to say yes to each other. Moreover, when Carse
describes play, he describes the chance for surprises: “to be playful is to allow for
possibility whatever the cost to oneself.”82
This mobile seating helps put people into a
playful state of mind by encouraging them to move and shift their orientations. In
addition, because seating is impermanent, individuals have greater opportunities to
interact personally and empathize with each other through “serendipitous interaction.”83
Consequently, the characteristics of the seating in these spaces helps collaborators

Alexis Luscutoff
42
42
establish greater trust, thereby creating the emotional connection that Brown suggests
is important to play, creativity, and innovation.
Assorted seating in the different zones of these spaces also facilitates status
games that can encourage playfulness between collaborators. When the space gives
people the opportunity to shift from one type of seating to another it changes their
physicality and allows them to adjust the quality of their interactions. Such changes in
physicality help people move back and forth on the status see-saw so they are more
comfortable creating together. For instance, people in the Garage might shift from a
sophisticated and grounded posture in a desk chair, to a relaxed slouch in bar stool, to a
crouch on a foam cube. This range from postured to relaxed seating is evidently quite
effective in collaboration spaces, considering that each space I observed includes desk
chairs, bar stools, and couches. So, by giving people places to sit freely in these
postures, the space gives people permission to behave playfully.
Tools and Play
Tools are especially helpful for infinite play and creative collaboration. Not only
do they signal the type of work people may do in a space, but they also influence status
relationships and help people to unleash their imaginations.
Signage is a simple and effective tool that collaboration spaces use to help
people be creative. As Johnstone indicates, people often need permission to play and
act creatively, especially in a work environment. Signs, or display devices, list rules for
behavior and encourage certain attitudes. In a sense, these signs act as the play “guru,”
of which Johnstone speaks.84
Three of the spaces I observed have clear signage: The
Hacker Dojo’s “Dojo Policies,” the d.school’s “Protoyping Room Rules” and “Reset”

Alexis Luscutoff
43
43
signs, and the Garage’s desk “Parking Spaces.” When people see these indicators, they
feel safe in knowing what they can and cannot do, and feel free to behave within those
parameters. As Ming Li Chai noticed in her work with teams at Microsoft, once
collaborators see such instructions, they feel relief in knowing, “I’ll be okay as long as I
play according to the rules.”85
These rules also increase people’s feelings of safety
being vulnerable to surprise and possibility. Therefore, this signage and the “rules” they
present, appear to carry significant leverage in the character of a space and how people
will interact together within it.
Nearly all the spaces I visited include a full supply of collaborative brainstorming
tools.3
Such collaboration tools include art supplies, writing utensils, electronics, desk
supplies, and sticky notes. Every space also includes dry erase boards, which serve as
both surfaces and tools. In most spaces these tools are communal and mobile, whether
in carts or on wheels themselves. Just as drawing on the walls in the Garage reveals a
childlike part of collaborators, these tools function like toys in a collaboration toy chest
that brings together work and play. By encouraging imaginative play, they embody
Huizinga’s vision that play should not be serious; but by helping people create ideas,
they also reflect Carse’s vision that play is not trivial or frivolous. Consequently, people
can play with purpose, because they use these tools to work toward their ultimate goal.
Brainstorming tools also have a particularly positive influence on collaboration
because they support teamwork and motivate collaborators to make mistakes. Tools
like sticky notes help to facilitate creative brainstorming in which collaborators can “Build
3
The only spaces that did not have these tools were the Hacker Dojo and PARISOMA,
probably because they were open to the public and not affiliated with private
organizations.

Alexis Luscutoff
44
44
on the Ideas of Others…Be Visual…[and] Go for Quantity.”86
When a high quantity of
these resources is available, groups are more willing to collaborate with them, because
they do not seem like precious resources. As a result, they encourage collaborators to
create as many ideas as possible, and they give collaborators room to be imaginative,
make bold offers, take risks, and say yes to other people’s ideas.
Food and drink prove to be effective tools in enlivening collaboration spaces, as
well. Sure people feel more comfortable after a glass of wine, but food and drink are
also effective in shaping the use of a space itself. As I indicate in my observations, the
the ME310 Loft Hosts SUPS each week, the d.school has social events with food and
drink in their foyer, the Garage hosts Beer and Demos, IDEO has a special kitchen
area, and the rest host special cocktail hours and events where people can drink
refreshments and collaborate. Based on Oldenburg’s The Great Good Place, by
creating a casual environment with food and drink, these collaboration spaces establish
a third place atmosphere where “the purpose is to enjoy the company of one’s fellow
human beings and to delight in the novelty of their character…[and engage in]
pleasurable and entertaining conversations.”87
Thus, food and drink are additional
resources that inspire mingling and subsequently encourage friendly status exchanges
that help to develop trust and empathy between co-collaborators.
Based on my observations, the broad variety of tools and the many ways they
can influence status relationships and behavior, suggests that they are pivotal to the
effectiveness of play in the design of collaboration spaces.

Alexis Luscutoff
45
45
Synthesis
I demonstrated through these analyses that incorporating principles of play into
the design of collaboration spaces helps to fuel creativity and collaboration. However,
although all of these spaces integrate similar aspects of play into their designs, some do
it better than others.
While all the spaces I observed make collaborators feel like they are a member
of a team, the better collaboration spaces also take the extra step to encourage playful
behavior among collaborators. IDEO, the Garage, and the d.school do an exemplary job
of designing playful, imaginative thinking into their collaborative workspaces. They all
prime people for play when they signal rules for behavior through signs and labels.
While these rules may seem restrictive, they instead give people creative and
collaborative freedom to play. A list of rules could be a positive addition to the ME310
Loft because it would help groups keep the space more organized so they have more
room for collaboration and productivity.
The more effective collaboration spaces are also the most transformable. The
d.school and the Garage most notably put the majority of their rooms, including chairs,
tables, and tool bins, on wheels. In doing so, they release people into a state of
imaginative play, wherein they can use the space however they see fit. Moreover, by
making everything mobile and malleable, they also turn seating and surfaces into
multipurpose tools for collaborative brainstorming and prototyping. The Hacker Dojo in
particular will facilitate more interactivity if it puts its furniture on wheels and encourages
visitors to transform the space to accommodate their inspirations.

Alexis Luscutoff
46
46
Finally, the best spaces also have an abundance of tools that serve as canvases
for creative thinking. By supplying such brainstorming tools as post its and dry erase
boards, these spaces give people abundant space to take risks and participate in
imaginative play. IDEO, the Garage, the d.school, and the ME310 Loft are exceptionally
gifted in providing collaborators with the brainstorming tools they need. PARISOMA and
once again, the Hacker Dojo, could facilitate more collaboration if they provided visitors
(even just members) tools for working together and generating creative ideas.
Thus, it appears that the best collaborative workspaces are designed to help
people feel like they are part of a team, and also help people set free their imaginations
so they can take risks and generate ideas playfully.
Conclusions
I began this paper by asking, “how can space facilitate collaboration, now that, as
Sennett proposes, we’re losing skills of cooperation?” After discussing the relationship
between creativity and collaboration, pinpointing the components of a space and
identifying them in collaboration spaces, and deriving principles of play from the spaces
I observed, it is clear that play is integral to the design of effective collaboration spaces.
Sennett foresaw the need for collaboration in the growing creative economy, and
companies like Google and IDEO illustrate the veracity of Sennett’s foresight. Our
production model is changing. The fact that such successful companies are constructed
with collaboration and innovation in mind, suggests that collaborative workspaces are
the way of the future.
We are in the midst of a contemporary shift from the post-industrial era to one
defined by a creative economy comprised of makers and collaborators, and we need to

Alexis Luscutoff
47
47
be equipped to deal with that transition. It is imperative that we reframe our mindsets
and our workspaces to accommodate the creative people who will think up the big ideas
that change the world. I have shown how principles of play make that future possible for
any workspace.
In order to keep up with the cutting edge of creative thinking, we need to
establish cultures that integrate work and play together as one. By incorporating play
into the design of our workspaces, we can foster creative cultures and prepare
ourselves for the future of innovation.
1
Sennett, Richard. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2012), 9.
2
Economist: The Third Industrial Revolution
3
Sennett, 5.
4
Himmelman, Arthur. “Collaboration for a Change: Definitions, Decision Making Models, Roles, and
Collabroation Process Guide.” Himmelman Consulting, 2-3.
5
Mamykina, L., Candy, L., and Edmonds, E. “Collaborative Creativity,” Communications of the ACM Vol.
48, No. 10 (2004), 96.
6
Himmelman, 3.
7
Carleton, Tamara, et. al., “Patterns of Creative Work,” ed. Marcia Davies and Clark Malcolm, San
Francisco: Herman Miller, Inc., (2004), 8.
8
Mayer as quoted in Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul. “Introduction,” Group Creativity, Innovation
Through Collaboration, Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul B. ed (2003, Oxford, Oxford University press),
3.
9
Farooq, Umar, Carroll, John M., and Ganoe, Craig H. “Supporting Creativity with Awareness in
Distributed Collaboration.” Computer-Supported Collaboration and Learning Laboratory, Center for
Human-Computer Interaction. (University Park, PA: College of Information Sciences and Technology, The
Pennsylvania State University, 2007), 32.
10
Farooq et. al, 32.
11
Farooq et al, 32.
12
Carleton, et. al, V.
13
Carleton, et. al, V.
14
Carleton, et. al, 2.
15
West, Michael. “Innovation Implementation in Work Teams,” Group Creativity, Innovation Through
Collaboration, Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul B. ed (2003, Oxford, Oxford University press), 250.
16
West, 248.
17
18
Carleton, et. al, 4-5.
19
Schmarsow, August. “Essence of Architectural Creation,” Empathy, Form & Space: Problems in
German Aesthetics, Harry Francis Mallgrave ed. (1994) Los Angeles: Getty Books), 286.
20
Wigley, Mark. “The Architecture of Atmosphere” Daidalos 68 (1998), 18.
21
Doorley, Scott and Witthoft, Scott. Make Space. (New Jersey: Wiley, 2012), 5.
22
Doorley and Witthoft, 22.

Alexis Luscutoff
48
48
23
24
Doorley and Witthoft, 42
25
Krueger, T., " The architecture of extreme environments." Space Architecture, Architectural Design,
(Vol70, no 2., 2008), 10.
26
27
Oldenburg, Ray, The Great Good Place. (Washington, DC: Marlowe & Company, 1999),16, 26
28
Steven Johnson
29
Moorhead, Laura. Personal interview. 8 Feb. 2013.
30
Mamykina, L., Candy, L., and Edmonds, E., 97.
31
Mamykina, L., Candy, L., and Edmonds, E.98; Hoffman, Eva, Goh, Jonathan, and Rao, Aditya.
Collaboration and Documentation Group. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2013.
32
Witthoft, Scott. Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2013.
33
“Designing Spaces for Creative Collaboration.” HBR IdeaCast. HBR Blog Network. 19 Jan, 2012. MP3.
34
Kelley, David. Personal interview. 13 Feb. 2013.
35
“ABOUT IDEO.” IDEO, http://www.ideo.com/about/.
36
37
Clark, Katie. Personal interview. 12 Mar. 2013.
38
“PLAY.” IDEO, http://www.ideo.com/expertise/play/.
39
40
41
Jordan Newman as quoted in Stewart, James B. “A Place to Play for Google Staff.” New York Times.
(16 March 2013), B1.
42
Rheingold, Mamie. Personal interview. 12 Feb. 2013.
43
Bushnell, Tyler. Personal interview. 28 Jan. 2013.
44
Hoffman, Eva, Goh, Jonathan, and Rao, Aditya. Collaboration and Documentation Group. Personal
Interview. 7 Feb. 2013.
45
46
47
David Kelley as quoted in Roethel, Kathryn. “Stanford’s design school promotes creativity.” San
Francisco Chronicle. 26 Nov. 2010, http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Stanford-s-design-school-
promotes-creativity-3244664.php.
48
49
Make space, 19
50
“PARISOMA.” PARISOMA. 2013, www.parisoma.com.
51
“OPEN SPACE” PARISOMA. 2013, www.parisoma.com/space/#open.
52
“About.” Hacker Dojo, http://www.hackerdojo.com/About.
53
54
Hacker Dojo, self-guided tour. Mountain View, CA. 22 Jan 2013.
55
Craig Nevill-Manning as quoted in Stewart, James B. “A Place to Play for Google Staff.” New York
Times. (16 March 2013), B6.
56
Huizinga as quoted in Callois, Roger. Man, Play, and Games. (NY, NY: The Free Press, 2001), 4.
57
Callois, Roger. Man, Play, and Games. (NY, NY: The Free Press, 2001), 4.
58
Callois, 4.
59
Callois, 9-10.
60
Carse, James P. Finite and Infinite Games. (NY, NY: The Free Press, 1986), 2.
61
Carse, 3.
62
63
Carse, 19.
64
Brown, Stuart and Vaughan, Christopher. Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and
Invigorates the Soul. (NY, NY: Penguin Group, 2009),136.
65
Chai, Ming-Li. Personal interview. 12 Feb. 2013.
66
Brown and Vaughan, 17-18.
67
Brown and Vaughan, 6.
68
Carse, 23; Brown and Vaughan, 161.
69
Brown and Vaughan, 138.

Alexis Luscutoff
49
49
70
Johnstone, Keith. Impro: Improvisation and the Theater. (NY, NY: Routledge, 1981), 97.
71
Madson, Patricia Ryan. Improv Wisdom: Don’t Prepare, Just Show Up. (NY, NY: Random House, Inc.,
2005), 27.
72
Madson, 27.
73
Madson, 7-8.
74
Johnstone, 93.
75
Johnstone, 36.
76
Johnstone, 36-37.
77
Johnstone, 37.
78
Johnstone, 62, 59.
79
Huizinga via Callois, 4.
80
81
Callois, 4.
82
Carse, 19.
83
Ben Waber via Stewart, B6.
84
Johstone, 84.
85
86
“Brainstorming.” IDEO. Notecard.
87
Oldenburg, 26.
References
Bushnell, Tyler, guide. ME310 Loft and d.school. Stanford, CA. 28 Jan. 2013.
Boyle, Brendan, guide. IDEO. Palo Alto, CA. 22 Feb. 2013.
Boyle, Brendan. Personal interview. 22 Feb. 2013.
“Brainstorming.” IDEO. Notecard.
Brown, Stuart and Vaughan, Christopher. Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the
Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul. Penguin Group: NY, NY; 2009.
Callois, Roger. Man, Play, and Games. NY, NY: The Free Press, 2001.
Carleton, Tamara, et. al., “Patterns of Creative Work,” ed. Marcia Davies and Clark
Malcolm, San Francisco: Herman Miller, Inc., 2004.
Carse, James P. Finite and Infinite Games. NY, NY: The Free Press, 1986.

Alexis Luscutoff
50
50
Clark, Katie, guide. IDEO. Palo Alto, CA. 12 Mar. 2013.
“Cultivating Innovative Behavior Using Design.” TEDX Manhattan Beach. 29 Oct. 2011,
http://tedxmanhattanbeach.com/2011/10/tl-conversation-sd-sw/.
“David Kelley : How to build your creative confidence.” TED Talks. March 2012. Web
May 2012.
<www.ted.com/talks/david_kelley_howto_build_your_creative_confidence.html>
“Designing Spaces for Creative Collaboration.” HBR IdeaCast. HBR Blog Network. 19
Jan, 2012. MP3.
Doorley, Scott and Witthoft, Scott. Make Space. New Jersey: Wiley, 2012.
Farooq, Umer, Carroll, John M., and Ganoe, Craig H. “Supporting Creativity with
Awareness in Distributed Collaboration.” Computer-Supported Collaboration and
Learning Laboratory, Center for Human-Computer Interaction. University Park, PA:
College of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University,
2007.
Gauntlett, David. Making is Connecting – The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY
and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2011.
Hacker Dojo, self-guided tour. Mountain View, CA. 22 Jan 2013.
Himmelman, Arthur. “Collaboration for a Change: Definitions, Decision Making Models,
Roles, and Collabroation Process Guide.” Himmelman Consulting.
Hoffman, Eva, Goh, Jonathan, and Rao, Aditya. Collaboration and Documentation
Group. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2013.
“How to Design Breakthrough Inventions.” 60 minutes. CBS News, 6 Jan, 2013.
<cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138327n>
Johnson, Steven. “Where Good Ideas Come From.” YouTube video 4:07, posted by
“Riverhead Books,” 17 Sep, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU.
Johnstone, Keith. Impro: Improvisation and the Theater. NY, NY: Routledge, 1981.
Klein, Dan. Personal interview. 10 Feb. 2013.

Alexis Luscutoff
51
51
Krueger, T., " The architecture of extreme environments." Space Architecture,
Architectural Design, Vol70, no2., (2008).
Madson Ryan, Patricia, Improv Wisdom: Don’t Prepare, Just Show Up. NY, NY:
Random House, Inc., 2005.
Mamykina, Lena, Candy, Linda, and Edmonds, Ernest. “Collaborative Creativity,”
Communications of the ACM Vol. 48, No. 10 (2004): 96-99. Print.
“Manufacturing: The third industrial revolution.” The Economist. 21 Apr. 2012,
http://www.economist.com/node/21553017.
Moorhead, Laura. Personal interview. 8 Feb. 2013.
Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul. “Introduction,” Group Creativity, Innovation Through
Collaboration, Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul B. ed (2003) Oxford, Oxford University
press: 1-8.
Oldenburg, Ray, The Great Good Place. Washington, DC: Marlowe & Company, 1999.
“OPEN SPACE” PARISOMA. 2013, www.parisoma.com/space/#open.
“PARISOMA.” PARISOMA. 2013, www.parisoma.com.
PARISOMA, self-guided tour. San Francisco, CA. 22 March 2013.
Rheingold, Howard. Net Smart: How to Thrive Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2012.
Rheingold, Mamie, guide. The Garage. Mountain View, CA. 12 Feb. 2013.
Rheingold, Mamie. Personal interview. 12 Feb. 2013.
Roethel, Kathryn. “Stanford’s design school promotes creativity.” San Francisco
Chronicle. 26 Nov. 2010, http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Stanford-s-design-
school-promotes-creativity-3244664.php.
Schmarsow, August. “Essence of Architectural Creation,” Empathy, Form & Space:
Problems in German Aesthetics, Harry Francis Mallgrave ed. (1994) Los Angeles: Getty
Books: 281-297.
Sennett, Richard. The Culture of New Capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2007.

Alexis Luscutoff
52
52
Sennett, Richard. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.
Stewart, James B. “A Place to Play for Google Staff.” New York Times. 16 March 2013:
B1, B6. Print.
West, Michael. “Innovation Implementation in Work Teams,” Group Creativity,
Innovation Through Collaboration, Nijstad, Bernard and Paulus, Paul B. ed (2003)
Oxford, Oxford University press: 245-276.
Wigley, Mark (1998) “The Architecture of Atmosphere” Daidalos 68: 18-27.
Witthoft, Scott. Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2013.

PLACE.PLAY.INNOVATION.MA.Luscutoff

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to PLACE.PLAY.INNOVATION.MA.Luscutoff

Similar to PLACE.PLAY.INNOVATION.MA.Luscutoff (20)

PLACE.PLAY.INNOVATION.MA.Luscutoff