VIRTUAL OFFICING TRENDS
IN THE PRACTICE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
By
Douglas E Boyer

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Environmental Design – Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
VIRTUAL OFFICING TRENDS
IN THE PRACTICE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
By
Douglas E Boyer

This research examines trends in virtual officing in project-based organizations
such as landscape architecture firms. Virtual officing is the process of employees
conducting business full-time in designated places other than a central office. Of
particular interest is the development of communications technology to allow these new
business models to grow and prosper. A survey was distributed by the American
Society of Landscape Architects to landscape architecture member firms, with questions
focusing on their business practices and virtual officing trends. It was found that virtual
officing usage is on the rise in landscape architecture firms. Trends in hiring also were
positively affected by the presence of virtual officing, showing a correlation between this
new business model and the overall strength of a firm.

Keywords: virtual officing, landscape architecture business, network-centric
organization, project-based organization

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to begin by thanking the American Society of Landscape Architects
and Mr. Terry Poltrack, Director, Public Relations and Communications at the American
Society of Landscape Architects, for their invaluable assistance with the Business
Indicator Survey and follow up questions. I would like to thank Dr. John Schweitzer,
Professor, Michigan State University School of Planning, Design and Construction, for
volunteering his time to assist with the formulation of descriptive statistics and crosstabulations of the survey data. I also would like to thank Mr. Paul Nieratko, Senior
Specialist, Michigan State University Landscape Architecture Program, for instilling in
me a passion for the practice and profession of landscape architecture, and Mr. Tony
Bauer, FASLA, Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University Landscape Architecture
Program, for his willingness to discuss and offer opinions on my research topic from
beginning to end. I would like to single out Ms. Pamela Blough, FASLA, Adjunct
Professor, Michigan State University Landscape Architecture Program, for leading me
into my research topic, hands-on experience in a virtual office setting, and for her
constant availability to competently answer any questions I have had. Lastly, I have to
thank Dr. Joanne Westphal, FASLA, Professor, Michigan State University Landscape
Architecture Program, for her guidance, research expertise, and most of all her patience
in encouraging me throughout this endeavor.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................... 2
Project Based Organizations ............................................................................... 2
Virtual Officing/Telework...................................................................................... 4
Future Effects of Virtual Officing .......................................................................... 7
History of Design Firm Business Models ............................................................. 8
Landscape Architecture/Architecture Business Background .............................. 16
CHAPTER THREE - HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................. 22
CHAPTER FOUR - METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 24
CHAPTER FIVE - RESULTS ....................................................................................... 27
Size of Firms ..................................................................................................... 27
Geographic Location of Firm’s Projects ............................................................. 28
Firm Revenue.................................................................................................... 29
Hiring Trends ..................................................................................................... 29
Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing ..................................................... 30
Cross-Tabulation of the Business Indicator Survey ........................................... 31
The Size of Firms and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing ........... 32
The Location of Projects and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing . 32
Firm Revenue and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing ................. 34
Hiring Trends and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing .................. 35
CHAPTER SIX - DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 37
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 46
Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................... 46
CHAPTER SEVEN - CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 47
APPENDIX................................................................................................................... 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 51

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Historical trends in virtual officing practices among landscape architecture
firms, 1997 to 2012 ...................................................................................................... 25
Table 2: Follow-up questions relating to virtual officing to provide insight to workplace
conditions .................................................................................................................... 26

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sizes of landscape architecture firms completing the ASLA quarterly online
survey, Spring 2012 ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 2: Prinicpal geographic locations for landscape architecture projects, based on
the ASLA quarterly online survey, Spring 2012 ............................................................ 28
Figure 3: Revenue levels of landscape architecture firms, based on the ASLA quarterly
online survey, Spring 2012........................................................................................... 29
Figure 4: Hiring percentages of landscape architecture firms, based on the ASLA
quarterly online survey, Spring 2012 ............................................................................ 30
Figure 5: Percentage of firms utilizing virtual officing from 1997 to 2012, based on the
ASLA quarterly online survey, Spring 2012 .................................................................. 31
Figure 6: Size of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on the ASLA quarterly online
survey, Spring 2012 ..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 7: Location of projects utilizing virtual officing firms, as based on the ASLA
quarterly online survey, Spring 2012 ............................................................................ 33
Figure 8: Reveue levels of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on the ASLA quarterly
online survey, Spring 2012........................................................................................... 35
Figure 9: Hiring trends of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on ASLA quarterly onlinne
survey, Spring 2012 ..................................................................................................... 36

vi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This research involves an exploratory study that examines trends in business
models of project-based organizations such as architecture and landscape architecture
firms. Of particular interest is how communications technology is used to conduct
business under conditions whereby employees are dispersed to geographically different
places other than a central office. Having separate offices, digital technology is used to
handle corporate business, resulting in a reduced hierarchical structure within these
firms as a part of their business plan. This allows employees to set their own problemsolving methods, standards of performance, and professional network configurations.
Without the existence of digital technology, this organizational type would be more
difficult to accomplish. Network-centric organizations such as these, in theory, should
allow firms to deal with clients and employees in time-saving ways not possible when
using pen and ink, and traditional communication methods and services.
This study investigates this supposition by reviewing the evolution of office
practice in architecture and landscape architecture over the past 150 years. While
comparatively little research detailing the professional practice of landscape architecture
exists, the study considers the organizational patterns of exemplary firms along an
evolutionary timeline. Data from the study suggests that uniquely skilled practitioners
with vastly different methods of problem solving make landscape architects and
architects well-suited to take advantage of new digital technology in the workplace.
The occurrence and expansion of virtual officing in the broad discussion of the
business of design firms is the topic of this study. This study analyzes virtual officing in

1

terms of: 1) its occurrence in landscape architecture firms; 2) its utilization of new types
of communications methods, especially among different age groups; and 3) its impact
on the hierarchy of a firm, especially relating to seniority levels.

2

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Project-Based Organizations
Landscape architecture and architecture firms fall under the category of projectbased organizations. This means that they focus on projects, with each project
requiring different resources, methods, and timelines. In project-based organizations,
instead of a definite production line, product and production methods change with each
individual project (Artto and Kujala 2008). The typical product of an
architecture/landscape architecture firm is a design or analysis of a unique object,
building, or space of some kind. The actual product can range from a written document
(i.e., a plan) to construction drawings, to oversight of the built object, building, or space.
These products are typically provided to a variety of different clients such as a
developer, a homeowner, or a public entity such as a city, county, state or agency.
Their product is based upon the client needs, the surrounding communities’ needs, the
environment’s needs, and the existing sites’ needs. This unique type of business
requires an emphasis on team work and communication. Employees within the firm and
contracted workers from outside the firm must work together in a timely fashion to
complete the project as a team, regardless of location and other project commitments.
This collaboration between parties is critical, as a vast majority of successful projects
are completed by diverse teams of creative individuals (Kelley 2001). However, teams
are inherently more difficult to manage. According to Gordon (2005), in today’s global
economy, the worldwide location of projects and increasingly shortened timeframes
create difficulties for team projects that involve great distances, as they commonly do.
This requires communication methods that transcend traditional face-to-face meetings
3

and phone calls, to expanded computer-based venues such as e-mails and video
conferences. These venues are somewhat new, and their effect on business models of
firms is a relatively unexplored topic.
Virtual Officing/Telework
According to Bailey and Kurland (1999), there are four types of virtual officing or
telework. Home-based telecommuting is working from home. The satellite office
allows employees to “work both outside the home and away from the conventional
workplace.” The neighborhood work center is similar to a satellite office but instead
houses employees from multiple companies. Mobile-work is the ability to work from
any location, made easier by communications technology such as computers and smart
phones. Furthermore, virtual officing also provides an opportunity for increased worker
productivity (Verespej 2001), a relatively distraction-free environment, more worker
autonomy, and reduced commuting times.
Virtual officing is not without its challenges. It does not allow managers to
oversee their employees on a first-hand basis, which can create confusion, especially
when teamwork is a critical aspect of project-based organizations. The mentoring of
entry-level employees also is negatively affected by the decrease in personal time and
contact that comes from virtual officing. However, communication has been shown to
be improved overall using virtual officing based upon the perception of telecommuters.
According to Martinez-Sanchez (2008), this is likely due to a commitment from the
company to make virtual officing successful. Organizations have a tendency to put
more attention and technical support into telecommuters, which benefits their

4

communication more when compared to traditional workers (Akkirman and Harris 2005;
(Martinez-Sanchez 2008, 22). According to Bartel (2012), one of the challenges facing
an employee in a virtual office is their commitment to and understanding of their
organization’s corporate structure. Another is the loss of collective memory that is
stored in a group that works together. And lastly, there is a lost opportunity to build an
esprit de corps within the firm when off on one’s own in a virtual office (Bartel 2012;
Wagner 2004). However, it has been shown that if the telecommuting worker receives
support from his or her organization that is committed to virtual officing, he or she will
have more commitment to the organization and are more satisfied when working longer
hours than a traditional office worker (Akkirman and Harris 2005; Martinez-Sanchez
2008).
According to Smola & Sutton (2002), different generations respond to the effects
of virtual officing with different levels of acceptance; this, in turn, affects the productivity
of an office. Older generations are less likely to accept virtual officing as a legitimate
expenditure of time and money. They are also less likely to use or understand the
involved technology. However, as younger generations move into the workplace, the
ability to utilize virtual officing increases with their technological know-how. Therefore, it
is important to avoid discrimination based upon experience levels and propensity to use
new technology. Older generations should not be discriminated against for their lack of
technological understanding; their accumulated professional experience is invaluable as
a business, mentoring, and problem-solving tool. Likewise, younger generations should
not be discriminated against because their technological understanding is critical to the
efficient firm production and the professional image of the firm. All generations need to
5

understand virtual officing and accept its legitimacy to allow it to be successful within a
firm.
According to Twenge (2010), the currently new generation of workers, the
Millenials, who were born between the late 1970’s and the early 2000’s, are known to
have a better appreciation for a balance between life and work than previous analyzed
generations. This fits in well with virtual officing due to its ability to reduce commuting
times and allow for more autonomy (Bailey and Kurland 1999; Twenge 2010). The
Millenial generation also desires more job security than past generations. Virtual
officing can provide this by providing a greater variety of work options to employees. It
also can alleviate the need to change companies when interested in moving to a
different area as they can have the option to operate a virtual office for their current
employer.
Newer generations such as Generation X and Generation Y also have flattened
the hierarchical curve of organizations due to their increased knowledge of the available
communication technologies (Twenge 2010). This mastery of communications
technology began to initiate new methods of problem-solving, project development, and
firm organization. It has the ability to move the firm from a hierarchical office structure
to a network-centric structure. A network-centric structure is a flexible orientation of an
organization, without a consistent hierarchy (Crawford et. al. 2009). According to Vogus
& Sutcliffe (2001), the Law of Requisite Variety states that a concentration of power is
not the ideal way to solve problems and deal with the reality of a more complex society.
In businesses, this concentration of power typically takes the form of a rigid hierarchical
structure, consisting of interns through designers, associates, principals and partners.
6

Rather, a network-centric structure makes sense when communications technology
allows it to function better than in the past (Hasan 2008). A network centric structure is
a constantly evolving form where the hierarchy is variable from project to project, with
different levels of employees taking leadership roles in different projects. In this
structure, all levels of employees are easily able to communicate with others, regardless
of their stature or position. The communications technology that has been developed
has liberated organizations from a set hierarchy and allowed their workers to
communicate freely regardless of their seniority and/or position in the company or
geographic location. According to Crawford et. al. (2009), a network-centric
organization has been shown to work best when there are a distinct variety of age
groups in leadership positions; this would happen under virtual officing when
employees, regardless of age, are located outside of a central office. However, the
organization must be able to anticipate change and needs to have a strong ability to
adapt. This can be found in a design firm where adaptation is required with every new
project (Hasan et. al. 2005). Because of the challenges and autonomy provided by
virtual officing, network-centric organization is critical. It allows workers to handle their
coordination and responsibility under their own principles instead of under a single set
of corporate principles (Abrams 2009). In fact, network-centric organizations have been
shown to be the most applicable to creative fields that are well adapted to cultural
change (Hasan and Pousti 2006).
Future Effects of Virtual Officing
It has been postulated that virtual officing has the ability to improve productivity
while decreasing overhead. It can flatten the corporate hierarchy, but at the same time
7

can make a manager’s job more difficult (Twenge 2010; Akkirman and Harris 2005).
Generational differences may also come into play in the overall success of virtual
officing. According to Twenge (2010), communication technology works best in an
organization which has a wide variety of generations and experience levels. However,
as the technologies available at this point in time evolve, the possibilities of virtual
officing and the network-centric organization are likely to continue to increase and
influence the business practices of project-based organizations such as landscape
architecture firms.
History of Design Firm Business Models
The business practices of design firms are generally influenced by a wide array
of factors. These include, but are not limited to, knowledge and experience of the
owners; trends in design, business and the market; and types of projects. However,
one of the largest factors and most applicable to this study, is the available technology
of the time period. For example, instantaneous communication beyond the office walls
has become more commonplace and available in the workplace through improved
digital technology and improved transportation methods. This has resulted in projects
becoming more team-oriented. This means of using multiple members of a firm to
coordinate a project and to work together to deliver the final product, was not always
the case in the past.
Prior to the Mid-19th Century, architecture firms were generally considered
ateliers, with a single practitioner working alone and offering a personal service. An
architect would handle contract negotiation, budgeting, design, construction

8

documentation, and in-field oversight by himself/herself. According to Balmori (1987),
the business structure of a design firm was organized in a similar fashion to doctors and
lawyers of the time. If a firm was slightly larger (for example up to ten employees) work
would be separated between the partners of the firm with each partner handling
separate projects with separate employees specifically assigned to that project assisting
them. In this case, the partners would rarely work together on a single project.
However, the architecture firm of George B. Post, founded in 1860, began to
change this model to something more in line with what is typical today. According to
Weisman (1972), Post was trained in civil engineering around the time of the Civil War,
and he came from a wealthy family with many strong connections to business and
industrial leaders in the Northeast. He began his firm in New York City. He relied on
personal connections that he could take advantage of through his upper-class
background. Typical among architects of the time (Balmori 1987, 342). According to
Balmori (1987), as the 19th century progressed, clients became more reliant on using
financing to complete their projects. Because of this, they required greater speed
throughout the process of design and construction to reduce the associated costs. In
response, Post began working on multiple aspects of projects concurrently to save
money and streamline the design process. As his firm grew, he began assigning
different tasks among his employees, allowing them the opportunity to focus on the
design of a particular aspect of a building. Previously, architects had handled all design
themselves and had used employees as merely draftsmen. Post’s innovation
eventually led to increased specialization within the office, with each employee working
on a single aspect of multiple concurrent projects. This practice was similar to the
9

methods being developed in industrial production in the same time period. Essentially,
the office began to function as a production line of sorts. It was a great change to the
methods of even 15 years earlier when projects were assigned to a specific designer
who then carried out all pieces of a project from design conceptualization through
construction. While Post “may not have been an architect of the first magnitude”
(Weisman 1972, 200), his firm’s business model led to a successful business operation
of almost 40 years as a well-respected, productive office. This led the way for design to
become a business enterprise, beyond the hobbies and ambitions of the studio and
artist (Balmori 1987, 350-352).
In the late 19th century, the business models of design firms were still generally
based around a single office, although now with with multiple employees, where most
production and organization took place. Marketing was accomplished through word-ofmouth by wealthy businessmen. These wealthy clients also were much more likely to
travel to visit their architect, typically to socialize or analyze their studio, employees and
lifestyle.

While every firm was different, it was typical for most to revolve around a

single figurehead, as opposed to the firm and its work being the defining characteristic,
as is more common in today’s market. For example, while the founder of modern
landscape architecture in the U.S., Frederick Law Olmsted, rarely worked with his other
partners on projects and vice versa, the firm was still centered on his name, personality,
and presence (Klaus 1997). According to Klaus (1997), Olmsted lived above his office,
running the business as a “family affair”. And while it stayed a family affair for over 100
years though his sons and grandsons, he began delegating much of his work to others.
He commonly would conduct the initial site visit on his own to get to know the client and
10

the project first-hand. By meeting all clients personally, he was able to develop a
personal relationship, critical to both word-of-mouth marketing and a successful project
that meets the client’s needs. Olmsted would group these visits into a week or two
based on train schedules, leaving the final follow-up visit to a senior assistant. He
would group his visits together, running himself across the country and back over the
course of a couple weeks. This enabled him to minimize his overall travel time and
spend more time in the office overseeing ongoing projects. The presence of Olmsted or
his sons was constant when working with clients even as the firm grew. However, they
were not always heavily involved in the design process. According to Stevenson
(1977), while this method was still typical for the late 1800’s, they were drastically ahead
of their time in the usage of contracted outside professionals, which is still to this day a
growing segment of the professional architecture and landscape architecture
population. When Olmsted and Calvert Vaux worked together from 1857 to 1872 they
would regularly hire professionals from outside the firm to complete a portion of their
engineering and horticultural work (Klaus 1997; Martin 2011).
In the architecture firm of Richard Upjohn, founded in the early 1840’s, an equally
strong focus was put on the head of the firm as the figurehead. The other design
employees each specialized in a small piece of the production process, also similar to
Post. However, Upjohn put a large emphasis on mentoring and education, which was
not commonly organized at that time. Before Upjohn, employees typically learned their
craft by watching and listening. In his office, mentoring and education was thought-out
and planned, with goals and specializations set for new employees. According to Hull
(1993), Upjohn’s office took a production-line approach to design, once the project
11

moved beyond the conceptual phase. Draftsmen, the employees who do most
document production, worked on a multitude of projects, but all within their particular
specialization. However, in the eyes of the public, his firm was seen as a family
business with Richard himself as the leader and creative mastermind. And while his
design influence was regional in its geographic scale due to the constraints of
transportation, Upjohn’s inspiration was worldly, which he drew from a large library of
predominately European design books (Hull 1993, 297). This may also be where he
developed his mentoring processes. Upjohn, a leader within the architecture profession
in his time and a founder and President of the American Institute of Architects, was a
strong advocate for the business side of architecture (Wheelwright 1939, 502). His
contributions to architecture included corporate rights, consistent pay, fair competition
(where many of the firm’s projects were acquired) and an overall professionalization of
the practice (Hull 1993, 292). He also was one of the first to use many of these now
common office management styles. He also implemented an organizational pattern
involving a hierarchy of students (as interns) that worked up through the hierarchy to the
partners.
On the other end of the scale of professionalism is one of the most famous
American architects in history, Frank Lloyd Wright. According to a tour of his property in
Oak Park Illinois, (Boyer 2013), Wright’s early career was marked by a studio attached
to his home in Oak Park, similar to the layout of Frederick Law Olmsted. In the studio,
draftsmen were located in a large open room on the first floor, with windows on three
sides. Above them was the artist’s workspace, with an opening in the middle of their
area looking down upon the architects. Wright laid out the studio in this manner as his
12

early architectural theory believed that artists were the inspiration to architecture. His
office was separate, down a hallway and split from the studio by the waiting room.
According to Friedland and Zellman (2006), after his move to Taliesin, his new home in
Wisconsin, he founded an educational fellowship. In this layout, architecture students
paid him to work and learn under him, tending to the house and farm, and if they were
lucky, occasionally drafting. In reality, Wright was in debt throughout most of his career
and had little money to hire any employees. He therefore relied on these students and
their payments to keep his office running as well as to produce his design work. At
times, this led to the detriment of their constructed quality. He managed his apprentices
tightly, directing their every waking moment and controlling their social lives. Wright
also was a critical boss and teacher, rarely praising his students’ designs (if he allowed
them to attempt design at all). If they did, he required it to be under his own name, with
no sign of whom the actual work was produced by, even if he never touched the project.
And although Wright allowed moonlighting, in part because of his own experience with it
while young, he still insisted that the designs be under his name, with violators being
removed from his fellowship at Taliesin. While other architects of the period had
managed to create successful businesses, Wright relied upon his creative genius to
bring in work, and disregarded bills and clients alike, showing a lack of professionalism
not apparent in the great beauty and popularity of his buildings.
By the 1950’s, de-centralization of offices had begun, but the design process was
still based upon the traditional model of the collaborative studio, such as Upjohn’s and
Post’s firms. Design firms, such as Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), were growing
larger and becoming more corporate, both in their business models and their final
13

products (Krinsky 1988, xi). SOM began as a four person partnership (with one being a
silent partner), and two offices operating independently (Owings 1973, 69). By 1949,
SOM had completely departed from the figurehead model of early years and many prior
firms, and it became a seven person partnership to better spread the leadership and
bring more funding into the firm (Krinsky 1988, 2, 13). This movement towards greater
size and efficiency was made possible by a variety of technological advancements. The
car and airplane enabled faster transportation to project sites around the world.
Overnight mail, the telephone, and the fax machine had the effect of reducing distance
on production capabilities. SOM had offices in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Their first satellite office in New York City opened as a requirement of a New York client
to employ a local firm (Owings 1973, 71). However, each office typically operated
independently, “with the architects acting much like doctors in a group practice” (Krinsky
1988, xiv). Occasionally, the offices would collaborate, but this was an uncommon
occurrence, only taking place on the largest and most demanding projects, typically
large scale planning tasks. The firm relied on their experts in a particular field to
address a specific project, regardless of their proximity to the project (Adams 2006). On
some occasions a studio in California would be working on a project on the East Coast
because of their personnel’s skill and experience in that type of project.
Sasaki, Walker and Associates, (later Sasaki Associates), is a multi-disciplinary
firm located in Massachusetts and founded in 1953. It was revolutionary in the
collaborative methods of project management that they introduced in the design firm
(Simo 1997, 9). Hideo Sasaki, the founder, brought together landscape architects,
architects, planners, construction managers, horticulturalists, and engineers under one
14

roof to maximize teamwork and efficiency. While most of the firm’s work occurred in
their Watertown, Massachusetts headquarters, larger projects were completed using
temporary on-site offices for construction document production. This practice model
eventually led to temporary offices on the West Coast partially and the formation of a
second office in California, managed by Peter Walker (Simo 2001, 24). Sasaki even
entertained the idea of moving the firm to a planned community along the coast of
Maine to better integrate work with personal life while maintaining a delicate balance
between the two, although this never came to fruition (Simo 2001, 21). When Hideo
Sasaki retired in 1980, leadership of the firm was split between the heads of the four
disciplines: landscape architecture, planning, architecture and engineering. This was an
early model of network-centric organization, providing more flexibility and collaboration
within the firm by dividing projects within a firm based on skill instead of experience. It
also made collaboration between disciplines more organized and easily divided (Simo
1997, 10).
Currently, a transitional period is occurring between the traditional office-centric
business model, and a network-centric model. A prime example of this transition is
Eckbo, Dean, Austin, and Williams, (EDAW) and now a part of the larger AECOM, a
multi-national design and planning firm. EDAW was formed in 1939 in San Francisco
by Garrett Eckbo and Edward Williams. By 1969, the firm had grown to about 45
employees and was beginning to expand internationally. The firm’s method of growth
was to open smaller offices in a wide variety of locations where they had clients. Office
staff relied on communications and transportation technology to connect the various
offices for collaboration. This gave them greater production capability, improved client
15

relations, and better project oversight due to their proximity. They also would open and
close offices based on project locations if they were no longer needed. EDAW
continued to grow in both number of offices and number of employees, until it was one
of the largest landscape architecture firms in the world. The firm never abandoned their
concept of a large multi-national firm being a single cohesively marketed unit, similar to
the model pioneered by SOM. However, it still did not take the steps to share a majority
of work between offices, instead having most offices operate independent of each other
(EDAW/AECOM 2009).
Landscape Architecture/Architecture Business Background
Landscape architecture and architecture firms are typically in the business of
creating designs and producing plans for outdoor spaces and buildings of a wide variety
of scales. They may also supervise construction and assist with the generation of
funding for their projects. These services are needed to provide a completed project
within an agreed upon budget and schedule. They also ensure that the build
environment is safe, economical, environmentally-friendly, and contains aesthetically
pleasing spaces for all to live and work. According to Jonassen (2011), these services
can be described as providing a variety of different types of values, such as iconic
value, market value, transformational value, cultural value, environmental value, and
urban value. The sum of these values aims to benefit the client, the community, and the
environment. Their size can run from a single-person firm to a large multi-national
corporation with hundreds of employees. Landscape architects and architects are both
required (as of 2013) to be licensed to practice their respective profession in all 50
states. The purpose of licensure is to provide a minimum level of competency within the
16

profession. This ensures that when a landscape architect or architect is hired, they
have proven the ability to provide a project that encompasses all values listed above.
Possible clients for landscape architects and architects include developers, private
individuals, corporations, non-profits, government entities, and sister professions, such
as engineers and planners. Public sector clients include the federal government, state
government, and local governments at the county, township, and city level.
There are a wide variety of factors affecting the business models of today’s
landscape architecture and architecture firms. There are social factors such as the
number and diversity of employees and the location and size of offices. These can
affect client relations by determining the cultural understanding between office and
client. They also can affect the amount and type of communications between office and
client, such as digital communications versus face-to-face. In addition, they can affect
the culture within a firm by determining the management styles (discussed later), interoffice relationships, and methods, quality, and consistency of communication between
employees. However, a firm must be able to comprehend, embrace, and take full
advantage of social and cultural differences within and outside an office to thrive in
today’s global business environment.
Another factor is the state of the economy, which affects the amount and type of
work a firm can attract. A strong economy allows for the growth of a firm through an
increase in projects, which can cause social changes within it. A weak economy can
have the opposite effect, as low revenue can cause downsizing and limit the production
capability. The amount of work a firm can attract under different economic states in turn
affects its number of employees through its ability to provide work and competitive
17

compensation. One way to address the dynamics of the economy, firms also may
change their marketing strategy and project types to better address different economic
climates. This stabilizing the size of the firm while allowing for greater resiliency.
The education and mentoring of employees also is a large factor in the
organization of a firm. Historically, architecture and landscape architecture firms
consider young employees to be similar to apprentices, with a course of professional
development beginning in computer drafting and graphics production and progressing to
design, project management, and marketing. The number of employees within a firm at
different levels of experience can affect the speed of production capabilities within a
larger firm and require greater outside contracting of different aspects of a project in a
smaller firm.
Lastly, the management style in the office has a large effect on the business
model of the firm. According to Jonassen (2011), the culture of the firm as a whole is
created by the leaders and owners in a top down approach. Their management style
will directly affect all aspects of a firm, including creativity, productivity, and office
culture. The use of autocratic style, where one individual is making all decisions, allows
for the most control, but does not gain trust or inspire creativity in employees. A
democratic style, when employees make decisions as a group, makes employees feel
more involved and can better handle complex situations, but can slow down the
decision making process. A participative style (a blend of autocratic and democratic
scenarios) allows the manager to consult with employees, while he/she retaints the final
decision-making. This style has positive and negative aspects. It keeps employees
feeling involved, but it also may make them resent a final decision more if their opinion
18

does not align. A laissez-faire style, where a manager provides guidance but the team
is free to complete the task however they see fit, helps to develop leaders and
confidence, but can cause conflicts within the group if there is a struggle for control
(Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2000).
The particular style of management that a firm employs often reflects a particular
period of time. For instance, early firms, such as Upjohn, and Olmsted, used primarily
autocratic styles of management. However, some firms, such as NBBJ, use a
participative style. Each of these methods can be found within different current firms,
and occasionally many are used within a single firm. However each style has varying
effects on the projects, employees, and the organization of the firm.
Because of the recent economic downturn (2008 – 2011) and subsequent slow
recovery, many firms are looking to enter new markets to make up for a decrease in
overall available projects. This results in increased competitiveness within markets. To
stay competitive, firms are likely to examine new methods to increase their efficiency.
One method, virtual officing, as discussed earlier, allows firms to expand their
geographical base and improve efficiency without incurring extraneous overhead costs.
As landscape architecture and architecture businesses have progressed into the
21st century, it has become necessary to become economically leaner to compete with
firms whose goal is to provide an inexpensive service. Businesses have become more
specialized due to increasingly complex projects and regulations. They also have
become more reliant on contracted collaborators, who are more specialized and better
suited to cope with complex projects. This results in the added benefit of decreased

19

employee related operating costs. Their reliance on others outside their geographic
region has increased to ensure they are collaborating with individuals who are familiar
with the culture and character of a region.
Improved production methods and communication technology has allowed fewer
employees to accomplish more work, regardless of location. However, they also require
more expertise due to the learning curve inherent in new, constantly developing
technology. This has led to a higher degree of specialization and an increased reliance
on others with separate specializations. These specializations have been integrated
into the project on a “per-project basis” which (U.S. Small Business Administration
2013) reduces labor costs and liability, and provides increased hiring and firing
flexibility. Until now, the technology to coordinate successfully with these specialists
has been limited. While many firms have begun to realize and adapt to these
technologies in contemporary society, it remains to be seen if most corporate entities
will do the same. In fact, according to Jonassen (2006), the design and construction
industry’s productivity rate has not improved as quickly as other large industries. This
might be a sign that new business models for design firms are needed to integrate
projects in a digital manner (Jonassen, 2006, 2). An overall movement by other types of
businesses into virtual officing makes it likely that project-oriented organizations are
doing the same, although there are different challenges in their ability to adapt.
Therefore, this study examines trends in virtual officing in landscape architecture
firms. It will attempt to explain the reasons behind the developments, and present a
discussion on the positive and negative impacts virtual officing can have on businesses

20

and the personal lives of employees (Roger 2011; Michigan Small Business and
Technology Development Center 2013).

21

CHAPTER THREE
HYPOTHESIS
This study aims to provide a base upon which further study of business models
within architecture and landscape architecture firms can be explored. It also can serve
as an introduction to virtual officing for managers, owners and principals that are
interested in virtual officing as a part of their firm, or just in improving and refining their
own business model. An understanding of the differences between project-based
organizations and other, more highly-studied organizations, will permit better
management and control of offices and projects. But first, it is important to understand
trends in current business models.
A survey was developed and employed through the ASLA to begin to understand
the trends in virtual officing in landscape architecture firms. The results were analyzed
to provide a better understanding of the trends in virtual officing, and how they relate
types of firms, locations, revenue, and hiring trends. The following hypotheses were
developed to guide the study.
H01: Virtual officing has not increased in landscape architecture firms since 1997.
H1A: Virtual officing has steadily increased in landscape architecture firms from 1997
to 2012 and follows an exponential growth curve.
H02: There is no relationship between the occurrence of virtual officing and the
regional location of a firm’s projects.
H2A: Virtual Officing is more likely to be occurring in the Western U.S.

22

H03: There will be no correlation between the size of a firm and its likelihood to utilize
virtual officing.
H3A: Smaller firms are more likely to utilize virtual officing than larger firms.
H04: There will be no correlation between the revenue of a firm and its likelihood to
utilize virtual officing.
H4A: Firms with less revenue are more likely to utilize virtual officing, since smaller
firms are likely to have less discretionary revenue.
H05: There will be no relationship between the likelihood of a firm to be hiring in the
second quarter of 2013 under current economic conditions and its utilization of
virtual officing.
H5A: Firms utilizing virtual officing are more likely to be hiring in the second quarter of
2013 than firms that are not utilizing virtual officing.

23

CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
This study utilized an existing quarterly online survey of principals and owners of
landscape architecture firms by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)
called the Quarterly Business Indicator Survey. This survey asks about current
business practices and the overall business climate of landscape architecture. It is
intended to capture a probability sample of landscape architecture firms based in the
United States. In the second quarter of 2012 (January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012), the
survey was focused on the economic state of landscape architecture and the past and
current usage of virtual officing in landscape architecture firms. Data from that survey
was used for this study as well as for ASLA’s own research on landscape architecture
practice.
Roughly 4,000 landscape architecture firms exist in the ASLA electronic
database. All firms were polled via email, and 301 usable surveys were returned, a
typical return rate (N=301; 7.5%). The layout of the virtual officing questions was
confined by its placement within the greater ASLA survey: Therefore, the wording had to
be clear and concise to individuals unfamiliar with the terminology of virtual officing.
The general survey began with questions about the size of firms, their geographical
scopes, hiring trends of the past year, and perceptions of the current state of the field of
landscape architecture businesses. The questions relating to virtual officing followed
immediately with questions relating to the use of virtual officing in the past and present.
These questions were followed by an inquiry into specific methods and technology used
in the practice of virtual officing. To begin the virtual officing portion of the survey,
virtual officing was clearly and concisely defined as “employees who work full time from
24

a location other than a corporate office” (see Table 1). This definition was provided to
avoid any misunderstandings with the questions that followed (Tables 1 and 2). SPSS,
a statistical analysis software package, was used to generate frequencies and crosstabulations of the survey data.
Because the ASLA Quarterly Business Indicator Survey was used, IRB (Michigan
State University Institutional Review Board) clearance to collect the data was not
involved in this study. The survey was digitally distributed by ASLA. The identity of all
respondents was protected by assigning a random number to each response, with no
mention of the respondent name or corporate affiliation. Five questions relating to
virtual officing were developed by the author of this thesis, and 301 responses were
gathered to each question as listed (Tables 1 and 2). Respondents supplied their
answers by clicking on the appropriate responses in an online survey format.
For each time period below, please indicate the number of employees
who work or worked full time from a location other than one of your
Question
offices.
Currently None 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 to 24
25 or more
2007
None 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 to 24
25 or more
Response
Options
2002
None 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 to 24
25 or more
1997
None 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 to 24
25 or more
Table 1: Historical trends in virtual officing practices among landscape
architecture firms, 1997 to 2012

25

What
geographic
location is the
Questions
principal source
of your client
work?
West
Midwest

How many
employees
does your
firm have,
including
yourself?
1
2 to 4

Do you plan on
hiring any
employees in
the second
quarter of
2012?
No
Yes

What is the annual
revenue for your firm?
Less than $250,000
$250,000 -$1,000,000
$1,000,000 South
5 to 9
$3,000,000
$3,000,000 Response
Northeast
10 to 49
$5,000,000
Options
$5,000,000 International
50 to 100
$7,000,000
$7,000,000 100 +
$19,000,000
$19,000,000 +
Table 2: Follow-up questions relating to virtual officing to provide insight to
workplace conditions

26

CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS
Size of Firms
Data from the 301 usable surveys revealed that the highest percentage of firms
(n = 94; 31.3%) have only a single employee, while the lowest percentage (n = 8; 2.7%)
had between 50 and 100 employees. Twenty-eight percent (n = 84) of firms had two to
four employees, 14.3% (n = 43) had 5 to 9 employees, 14.3% (n = 43) had 10 to 49
employees, and 9.3% (n = 28) had greater than 100 employees (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Size of Firms
35.0%
30.0%

31.2%

27.9%

25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

14.3% 14.3%
9.3%

10.0%
5.0%

2.7%

Percentage of Firms

0.0%

Figure 1: Sizes of landscape architecture firms completing the ASLA quarterly
online survey, Spring 2012

27

Geographic Location of Firm’s Projects
Landscape architecture projects in the sample are distributed throughout the
country on the following regional basis: 32.0% (n = 86) West; 30.7% (n = 92) South;
20.7% (n = 62) Northeast; 15.3% (n = 46) Midwest; 1.3% (n = 4) International. These
numbers are identified by firms picking a single region where the majority of their
projects occur (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Geographic Location of Firms' Projects
35.0%

32.0%

30.7%

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

20.7%
15.3%

15.0%
Percentage of firms

10.0%
5.0%

1.3%

0.0%

Figure 2: Principal geographic locations for landscape architecture projects,
based on the ASLA quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

28

Firm Revenue
A majority of firms (46.1%; n = 136) had yearly revenue of less than $250,000 in
2011. This corresponds with the percentage of firms that have only a single employee.
Twenty five percent (n = 75) had revenue between $250,000 and $1,000,000. Twelve
percent (n = 35) had revenue between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000. Four percent (n =
11) had revenue between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000. Three and a half percent (n =
10) had revenue between $5,000,000 and $7,000,000. Four percent (n = 12) had
revenue between $7,000,000 and $19,000,000. Lastly, 5.4% (n = 16) had revenue over
$19,000,000 in 2011 (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Firm Revenue
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

46.1%

25.4%
11.9%
3.7% 3.4% 4.1% 5.4%

Percentage of Firms

Figure 3: Revenue levels of landscape architecture firms, based on the ASLA
quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

29

Hiring Trends
The percentage of landscape architecture firms that indicated that they would be
hiring in the second quarter of 2012 was 29.7% (n = 88). The percentage that were not
hiring was 70.3% (n = 208) (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Hiring Percentages
80.0%

70.3%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%

29.7%

30.0%

Hiring Percentages

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Not Hiring

Hiring

Figure 4: Hiring percentages of landscape architecture firms, based on the ASLA
quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing
The percentage of firms utilizing virtual officing clearly has grown over the past
15 years. In 1997, 4.7% (n = 11; N = 236) of landscape architecture firms used virtual
officing. In 2002, 12.2% (n = 30; N = 246) of firms used virtual officing. In 2007, that
number had grown to 18.4% (n = 47; N = 255). Finally, in Spring, 2012, 25.2% (n = 76;

30

N = 285) of firms were utilizing virtual officing as a part of their business model.
Therefore the null hypothesis H01 is rejected, and H1a is accepted (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Offices
30.0%
25.2%
25.0%
18.4%

20.0%
15.0%

Percentage of Firms
Utilizing Virtual Offices

12.2%

10.0%
5.0%

4.7%

0.0%
1997

2002

2007

2012

Figure 5: Percentage of firms utilizing virtual officing from 1997 to 2012, based on
the ASLA quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

Cross Tabulation of the Business Indicator Survey
Data from the survey analyzing the general characteristics of the firms was
further compared with the virtual officing data. Using SPSS, the cross-tabulations
examined significant relationships between the firm size, the geographic location of
projects, firm revenue, and the percentage of firms utilizing virtual officing.

31

The size of firms and the percentage of firms utilizing virtual officing
The survey indicates that 21.8% (n = 19) of one-person firms, 32.9% (n = 27) of
firms with two to four employees, 21.4% (n = 9) of firms with five to nine employees,
31.0% (n = 13) of firms with 10 to 49 employees, 0% (n = 0) of firms with 50 to 100
employee, and 32% (n = 8) of firms with over 100 employees are using virtual officing.
When cross-tabulated, a p-value of 0.288 is produced, showing no significant
correlation between the size of firm and their usage of virtual officing. Therefore, the
null hypothesis H02 is accepted, and H2a is rejected (Figure 6).

35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

32.9%

Figure 6
Size of Firms Utilizing Virtual Offices
32.0%
31.0%
21.4%

Size of Firms Utilizing
Virtual Offices

0.0%

Figure 6: Size of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on the ASLA quarterly
online survey, Spring 2012

The Location of Projects and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing
(Figure 7) The survey indicates that 30.0% (n = 27) of firms who have projects
occurring in the Western U.S. are utilizing virtual officing; 26.7% (n = 12) of firms who
32

have projects occurring in the Midwest are utilizing virtual officing; 25% (n = 22) of firms
who have projects in the South are utilizing virtual officing; 25.9% (n = 15) of firms with
projects in the Northeast are utilizing virtual officing. 0% (n = 0) of the firms who have
projects occurring internationally are utilizing virtual officing. When cross-tabulated, a pvalue of 0.783 is produced, showing no significant correlation between the location of a
firm’s projects and the percentage of firms utilizing virtual offices. Therefore, the null
hypothesis H03 is accepted and the testable hypothesis H3a is rejected. No region of
the country is dominating in virtual officing projects/products at this point in time.

Figure 7
Location of Projects Utilizing Virtual Offices
31.0%
30.0%

30.0%

29.0%
28.0%
26.7%

27.0%

25.9%

26.0%

25.0%

25.0%

Percentage of Firms
Utilizing Virtual Officing

24.0%
23.0%
22.0%
West

Midwest

South

Northeast

Figure 7: Location of projects utilizing virtual officing firms, as based on the
ASLA quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

33

Firm Revenue and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing
(Figure 8) The survey results indicate that 28.9% (n = 27) of firms that state an
income of less than $250,000 are utilizing virtual officing; 35.6% (n = 26) of firms that
state an income of between $250,000 and $1,000,000 are utilizing virtual officing;
38.2% (n = 13) of firms that state an income of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 are
utilizing virtual officing; 27.3% (n = 3) of firms that state an income of between
$3,000,000 and $5,000,000 are utilizing virtual officing; 11.1% (n = 1) of firms that state
an income of between $5,000,000 and $7,000,000 are utilizing virtual officing; 20.0% (n
= 2) of firms that state an income of between $7,000,000 and $19,000,000 are utilizing
virtual officing; 14.3% (n = 2) of firms that state an income of over $19,000,000 are
utilizing virtual officing. When cross-tabulated, a p-value of 0.119 is produced, showing
no significant correlation between a firm’s stated income and the percentage of firms
utilizing virtual officing. Therefore, the null hypothesis H04 is accepted and the testable
hypothesis H4a is rejected at this point in time.

34

Figure 8
Revenue of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing
45.00%
38.20%
40.00%
35.60%
35.00%
27.30%
30.00% 28.90%
25.00%
20%
20.00%
11.10%
14.30%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

Percentage of Firms
Utilizing Virtual Officing

Figure 8: Revenue levels of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on the ASLA
quarterly online survey, Spring 2012

Hiring Trends and the Percentage of Firms Utilizing Virtual Officing
(Figure 9) Less than a quarter (22.3%; n = 45) of firms that are not hiring are utilizing
virtual officing, while over a third (36.3%; n = 29) of firms that are hiring are utilizing
virtual officing. When cross-tabulated, a p-value of 0.016 is produced, showing a
statistically significant correlation between whether a firm is hiring and whether it is
using virtual officing as part of its business methods. Therefore, the null hypothesis H05
is rejected and the testable hypothesis H5a is accepted.

35

Figure 9
2nd Quarter 2012 Hiring Trends
40.0%

36.3%

35.0%
30.0%
25.0%

22.3%

20.0%

Percentage of Firms
Utilizing Virtual Officing

15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Traditonal Firms

Firms Utilizing
Virtual Offices

Figure 9: Hiring trends of firms utilizing virtual officing, based on ASLA quarterly online
survey, Spring 2012

36

CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION
As communications technology has progressed over the past 150 years,
business models have changed to take advantage of the new technology. For example,
the telephone allowed firms to spread projects and offices across the country by
enabling them to hold conversations regardless of location. The fax machine allowed
separate offices to collaborate on projects through instantaneous document exchange.
The internet has enabled firms and clients to transfer working computer files through
email and cloud storage, and video conference through programs such as Skype. This
has further sped up the collaborative design process regardless of location. It could be
speculated that communications technology has allowed firms to spread geographically,
judging by the responses of three U.S. firms who state that a majority of their work is
international, although the small sample size may distort the results.
Firm sizes have changed dramatically in the same time period. In the mid-19th
century, most firms were very small offices, typically one or two designers. By the mid20th century, large firms had developed, such as SOM, with almost 1600 employees
These firms were taking on a wide variety of project types and sizes. In the present
day, many firms are opening offices on different continents. However, firms have
recently begun decreasing in size, likely due to the current economic downturn.
Another possible explanation is the ability for production to occur anywhere a computer
can be placed and internet access can be found, allowing smaller firms to operate
efficiently without the need for office overhead expenses.

37

The data indicates there is no correlation between virtual officing and firm
revenue, the location of projects, or firm size at the point in time of the survey.
However, planned hiring, which is a tell-tale sign of corporate strength, shows a strong
statistical correlation. Since virtual officing is shown to positively link to hiring trends,
one can speculate that virtual officing may be giving these firms a competitive edge,
thus enabling them to hire more employees. Other benefits of virtual officing include:
decreased overhead (due to the lack of office space); increased productivity (due to a
reduction in office related distractions); and increased job satisfaction and work-life
balance (due to better time management by the employee, more attention and support
by the firm, and reduced or eliminated commuting times). All of these could contribute
to the success of the firm, thereby improving its hiring outlook as shown in Figure 9.
The results of the cross-tabulation between virtual officing and number of
employees indicate that almost 22% of one-person firms utilize some virtual officing.
Since one-person firms do not have other employees, it could be construed that all one
person firms are virtual offices, or at least operate with many virtual officing tendencies
such as a particularly large reliance on new communications technologies and an ability
to work from any location. The responses might be a misunderstanding of the
difference between a virtual office and “working from home.” Working from home is
considered a virtual office by definition in the survey. Those 22% also may be
interacting virtually with other disciplines and firms, therefore also meeting the listed
definition of virtual officing. The increase in virtual officing of 11% between one person
firms and two to four person firms is likely related to the ease of managing a small
number of employees in a virtual office setting, due to the inherent flexibility. Although
38

results show that 0% of firms with 50 to 100 employees utilize virtual officing, it could be
speculated that this is a disparity due to the small sample size of only six firms in that
range. Overall, these results show that firms of all sizes are recognizing the practicality
of virtual officing as a part of their business model.
The results of the cross-tabulation between project geography and virtual officing
indicate that 30% of firms who have projects in the Western United States are utilizing
virtual officing. This high number might be due to the digital technology industry in that
region, such as Silicon Valley and Seattle. Meanwhile, 0% of firms who predominately
work internationally are utilizing virtual officing. Again, it could be speculated that this
result is due to the small sample size of only three firms who have projects primarily
occurring outside the United States. However, it is common sense that more
internationally-oriented firms would use virtual officing due to the long distances
between office and project location so this may not be an accurate reflection.
Firms utilizing virtual officing are currently 11% more likely to be hiring than firms
using a traditional office setting. If we consider a firm’s ability to hire to be one of
financial health, then this result could be construed to show the positive benefit that
virtual officing can have on the overall financial health of landscape architecture firms.
This positive benefit is possibly due to the improved productivity that can be a result of
allowing employees to set their own methods, standards, and networks. Allowing
employees these freedoms also improves their happiness, and therefore positive
feelings towards their company. It also may be related to the larger market
opportunities and corresponding projects that can develop when a firm is widely
distributed geographically. The number is likely even more impressive when
39

considering that so many firms utilizing virtual officing are one-person firms; in many
cases these same firms are not interested in growing due to the personnel management
and increased paperwork required.
Virtual officing appears to be on the rise in landscape architecture, and likely in
other project-based businesses. This is primarily due to three likely reasons. The first
is the increase in technology that has been generated by devices such as the internet
and our easy, inexpensive access to it. This technology eliminates the geographic
limitations and reduces the turn-around time that affects a firm’s performance. In the
past, it took time to reach consensus over long distances even with the advent of the
telephone. It also took time and effort to mail documents and drawings due to
reproduction limitations and availability of copies, scanners, and delivery systems. The
technology utilized by virtual officing eliminates many of these limiting factors for
businesses.
The second factor involves the current economic climate. According to the
quarterly ASLA Business Indicator Surveys, the 2008 recession caused many firms to
downsize. In the years that followed, many firms stagnated. In 2006-2012, the
profession was experiencing a slow recovery in employment. This period caused firms
to find alternative methods to reduce costs in order to survive. The downsizing also
caused the average size of landscape architecture firms to shrink while smaller firms
became more numerous due in part to unemployed landscape architects forming their
own small businesses or sole proprietorships, according to Blough et al. (2012). As
these small businesses grow, they will likely be looking to spread geographically to

40

pursue clients in other locations, while still keeping their low office-related overhead.
Virtual officing can provide that opportunity.
The third factor contributing to the growth of virtual officing is the creativity of
design professionals. The design education system and the daily practice of creative
problem-solving leads to thinking outside the box and foster an acceptance of change
that goes beyond that of many other professions. Because of this, a movement towards
increased technology and greater independence in the workplace is more likely to occur
in design firms than in other more traditional types of businesses.
This is not to say that virtual officing is a solution to all challenges. It can lead to
a disconnect between employees and their employer due to the lack of face-to-face
communication. Mentoring becomes more difficult without having other employees
nearby to rely upon for information and experience, and managers to directly oversee
production methods and progress. Lastly, the design process is a great challenge in a
virtual office. Collaboration and the constant flow of ideas can be difficult to imitate
when not engaged in a face-to-face conversation. Phones, emails and even video
conferences do not fully communicate intonation and body language. Virtual officing
cannot be taken as a complete solution to the many problems of companies today, but
can be one method to increase profit and improve the work/life balance of employees.
The author himself has over a year’s experience working in a virtual office
setting. During his time employed by a landscape architecture firm, he worked with two
partners in the firm, located two and 14 hours away, respectively, by car. In this time
many projects of a variety of scales were undertaken, each achieved using virtual
officing almost exclusively.
41

Communication between workers was achieved through five different methods,
utilizing two separate devices. Each method has its own positive and negative
attributes, and each method was used to take advantage of their specific qualities.
The primary method of communication was the telephone, or smartphone.
Through this the author communicated with his employers on a regular basis, anywhere
from once a day to hourly. The main topics of conversation were detailed instructions,
specific business-related affairs, and design process discussions. These were primarily
conversations which needed more depth than could be provided by email or text.
Conference calls also were used to hold conversations between all three members of
the firm.
The next most common method of communication was email. This was used
both on a computer, and on a smartphone, making it the most readily available of the
different communication methods. Email was used to send files and images quickly,
explain a topic thoughtfully and in depth, and exchange documents both inside and
outside the firm. The strengths of email were numerous. The first is the ability to send
a document that is then permanently recorded and can be viewed multiple times
whenever needed. The second is the ability to communicate a logical and well-thought
out comment without the impulsiveness and “on the spong” responses required by
telephone. The third is the ability of the receiver of the email to view the message when
he or she chooses, as opposed to a telephone call which must occupy the time of both
parties concurrently. The main drawback to email was the lack of personal connection
and the interpretation that was allowed through a lack of verbal or physical expression.
Tones and expressions are easier to interpret through telephone and video

42

conferencing. However, email leaves the tone of the sender open to interpretation and
speculation, which can create confusion and even occasional anxiety in the receiver if
the message is misinterpreted.
A third method of communication was video conferencing. This was used to hold
meetings between the author and two partners. In the author’s case, a smartphone was
used for the call, but computers were used by the two partners to take advantage of
their larger screens. While utilized sparingly due to the possibility of technical difficulties
and difficulties in corralling all three parties into availability at the same time, it was very
effective at holding in-depth discussions and allowing all three parties to communicate
with each other concurrently. The use of video conferencing was a rare occasion but
was a useful tool in holding meetings and could be utilized effectively for group design
discussion and decisions.
Another method of communication was texting using a smartphone or telephone.
Texting allowed all parties to communicate quickly and discreetly when email was too
long, and a phone call was either inappropriate due to the situation or depth of question,
or simply inconvenient. This was used primarily to ask simple questions, or to alert a
party to the fact that they were needed. They could then call on their own time in followup. It was quick, impersonal, and lacking detail, but was useful when a simple “yes or
no” answer was needed.
Cloud storage also was used to communicate ideas visually. This last method of
communication was not a direct method, but instead a way of transferring documents
such as sketches, computer aided drawings, and written documents. This allowed

43

documents to be accessed from any location at any time, regardless of the device in
use.
Because education is an important aspect in the employment of a young
professional, the effects of virtual officing were particularly noticeable to the author.
Before entering the position, the author expected that mentoring and education would
likely be the most challenging aspect of virtual officing. Having little professional
landscape architecture experience meant that the basics of a landscape architecture
practice would need to be learned, on top of the differing methods in virtual officing and
the intricacies and developments of a recently formed small business. And as
expected, mentoring was a difficult but productive undertaking. A large portion of a
young professional’s development occurs through the questions asked of their more
experienced fellow employees. This can take easily take place in a studio setting where
they can be found a desk away, but in a virtual office it requires a more formal method
of communication such as those listed above. This meant that many possible questions
were not asked due to the difficulties in contacting a more knowledgeable worker.
However, the author benefitted from this because of the forced resourcefulness required
by self-sufficiency. When someone is not readily available to be asked, a virtual officing
employee must look to other sources for information, such as acquaintances and
references, both online and in hard copy. It forced the author to become self-reliant and
self-sufficient in a manner that may not occur in an office so early in the career of a
designer. In conclusion, while overall mentoring and education is less efficient and
productive in a virtual office setting, in the author’s case it had unintended benefits such
as developing self-reliance and new methods for information gathering.

44

Organizational support has been shown through prior research to be critical to
the success of a virtual office. In the author’s case, this was shown to be accurate.
Since both partners also were operating out of a virtual office setting, there was a
deeper understanding of the effects of virtual officing on both the differing production
methods and the psyche of a virtual officing employee. It was understood that each
employee would set aside time to work whenever needed, regardless of day of the
week or time of day, but that those particular times were flexible based upon each
individual’s schedule. Efficient and effective hardware that is critical to communication
and self-reliant functioning were provided or already on-hand, such as a printer,
scanner, smart phone, mobile workstation computer, and all needed production
software. Due to our reliance on technology, the author’s virtual officing experience
would have likely been much less productive had these not been provided.
In conclusion, the author’s experiences with virtual officing have been
challenging, but educational. The potential benefits provided in the form of increased
flexibility for employees’ personal lives and the responsiveness to clients was readily
apparent. However, from an employee’s perspective it is likely better suited to selfsufficient individuals who can thrive working on their own, and who are past the stage in
their career when they need detailed instructions to complete most common tasks.
From a corporate perspective, it has potential as a component of the practice of
landscape architecture today, and in the future for its ability to reduce overhead, expand
the market base, and improve work/life balance if properly planned and managed.

45

Limitations
Because the topic of landscape architecture and architecture business models is
a lightly-studied, proprietary topic, access to information on past business practices was
limited. In addition, many currently operating firms are unlikely to publish their business
models, for fear of a loss of competitive advantage in the future. In other cases, a lack
of interest in the discussion may be the reason.
The analysis is based upon a survey distributed by the American Society of
Landscape Architects. Because of the venue, the author was somewhat limited in his
ability to develop the questions (In terms of research and desired quality of results).
This circumstance may have resulted in some misunderstanding of the meaning of
“virtual officing” and the likelihood of its use.
Suggestions for Future Research
There are additional questions and correlations that could be valuable and may
be performed as a future study. These include analysis of other types of current
business practices, a stronger look into past practice in architecture and landscape
architecture firms and how it relates to technology of the time periods, and further
analysis of the day-to-day communication within design firms. As this thesis is to be
considered a base for future research of communications technology, and its effects on
the business of architecture and landscape architecture, there are endless opportunities
for future study.

46

CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION
Because of the evolving and easily accessible communications technology
provided by wireless systems and the internet, business models must be constantly
adapting to take advantage of these new advances. Based on the findings of this study,
firms are utilizing virtual officing at an increased rate. It also has been shown that firms
utilizing communications technologies are more likely to be hiring, which can be a sign
of the overall health of a business. However, the benefits of virtual officing to
employees of design firms have yet to be studied and are not fully understood. The
same can be said of its impacts on the quality of the completed products. Prior
research shows that while virtual officing is generally beneficial to most aspects of a
business if performed correctly, it is not a singular solution to employee happiness,
corporate flexibility and overhead costs. In summary, results of this study show that its
use is increasing quickly and may be benefitting firms that are employing it, but virtual
officing is best employed in a judicious, carefully analyzed manner to ensure that it fits
the company, managers, co-workers, and the virtual officers themselves.

47

APPENDIX

48

Glossary of Terms
Business Models:

The methods and plans through which a business
aims to exist, grow, and earn a profit

Communications Technology:

The application of knowledge and science that assists
in the act of transmitting information, e.g., Electronic
Mail (E-mail), Telephone, Text Message, Postal Mail,
Telegraph)

Digital Technology:

The application of knowledge and science which
transmits information in a digital form, e.g.,
Computers, Fax Machine, Cellular Phone)

Project-Based Organization:

An organization that attempts to achieve multiple
objectives through the completion of distinctly
different tasks, as opposed to attempting to maximize
its excellence and efficiency at one particular task
(Artto and Kujala 2008)

Network-Centric Organization:

An organization which attempts to increase its
competitive advantage through the use of
collaborative self-directed teams (Abrams 2009)

49

Traditional Office:

The administrative and production center of an
enterprise located at a singular address

Virtual Office:

A workplace which exists outside of a traditional
office. Workers do not normally commute to a
traditional office in this situation, but instead are
connected by communications technology, at a fulltime telecommuting location

Telecommuting:

Services and products are created, transmitted,
and/or revised from a location other than a traditional
office, commonly using communications technology
(U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2013)

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Robert Steven. 2009. "Uncovering the Network-Centric Organization." PhD
dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.
Adams, Nicholas. 2006. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, SOM since 1936. Milan: Electa.
Akkirman, Ali and Drew Harris. 2005. “Organizational communication satisfaction in
the virtual workplace.” Journal of Management Development 24(5): 397-409.
Artto, Karlos and Jaakko Kujala. 2008. “Project business as a research field.”
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1(4): 469-495.
Bailey, Diane E and Nancy B Kurland. 1999. “The advantages and challenges of
working here, there, anywhere, and anytime.” Organizational Dynamics 28(2): 53-67.
Balmori, Diana. 1987. “George B. Post: The Process of Design and the New American
Architectural Office (1868-1913).” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
46(4): 342-355.
Bartel, Caroline A., Wrzesniewski, Amy, and Batia M. Wiesenfeld. 2012. "Knowing
Where You Stand: Physical Isolation, Perceived Respect, and Organizational
Identification among Virtual Employees." Organization Science 23(3): 743-57.
Blough, Pamela, Boyer, Douglas, and David Lycke. 2012. “Working Outside the Box:
New Trends for Employment and LA Business Models.” Panel Discussion at the
American Society of Landscape Architects Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, October
1, 2013.
Crawford, Kate, Hasan, Helen, Warne, Leoni, and Henry Linger. 2009. “From
traditional knowledge management in hierarchical organizations to a network centric
paradigm for a changing world.” E:CO 11(1) 1-18.
EDAW/AECOM. 200. ASLA Landscape Architecture Firm Award. Los Angeles:
AECOM. Application.
Friedland, Roger, and Harold Zellman. 2007. The Fellowship: The untold story of
Frank Lloyd Wright & The Taliesin Fellowship. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Gordon, Jack. 2005. “Do your virtual teams deliver.” Training Magazine, June.
Hasan, Helen and Hamid Pousti. 2006. “SNA as an Attractor in Emergent Networks of
Research Groups.” ACIS 2006 Proceedings Online. Paper 104.

52

Hasan, Helen, Sundarasaradula, Doy, Walker, David and Andrew Tobias. 2005. “Selforganization, evolutionary and revolutionary change in organizations.” Strategic
Change 14(7): 367-380.
Hasan, Helen. 2008. “Back to the future for KM: the case for sensible organisation.”
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6(1): 26-30.
Huemann, Martina, Keegan, Anne, and J. Rodney Turner. 2006. “Human resource
management in the project-oriented company: A review.” International Journal of
Project Management 25: 315-322.
Hull, Judith S. 1993. “The ‘School of Upjohn’: Richard Upjohn’s Office.” Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians 52(3): 281-306.
Jonassen, James O. 2006. Changing Business Models in BIM-Driven Integrated
Practice. AIA Report on Integrated practice. 3.
Jonassen, James O. 2011. Designing the Design Firm. Greenway Communications:
Atlanta GA.
Kelley, Tom. 2001. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s
Leading Design Firm. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Khan, Azra. 2007. "Global Outsourcing in Landscape Architecture: Study of Current
and Future Trends and Effects." M.L.A. dissertation, University of Texas, Arlington. Ann
Arbor: ProQuest.
Klaus, Susan L. 1997. "All in the Family: The Olmsted Office and the Business of
Landscape Architecture." Landscape Journal 16(1): 80–93.
Krinsky, Carol H. 1988. Gordon Burnshaft of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Lee, Seunghae. 2008. “Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Alternative
Officing.” Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design
Research Association. 39: 55-61.
Martin, Justin. 2011. Genius of Place: The life of Frederick Law Olmsted. Cambridge,
MA: Da Capo Press.
Martinez-Sanchez, Angel, et al. 2008. “Telework Adoption, Change Management, and
Firm Performance.” Journal of Organizational Change Management. 21(1): 7-31.
Michigan Small Business and Technology Development Center. Guide to Starting and
Operating a Small Business. 2013. Last Modified January 2013.

53

http://www.michiganadvantage.org/cm/Files/Brochures/Non-MEDC_Produced/Guide-toStarting-and-Operating-a-Small-Business%281%29.pdf
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 2000. “Management Styles.” Last Modified July 17.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/advising/free_enterprise/business_structures/management_styl
es.htm
Rogers, Walter. 2011. The Professional Practice of Landscape Architecture. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Simo, Melanie. 2001. The Offices of Hideo Sasaki. Berkeley: Spacemaker Press.
Simo, Melanie. 1997. Sasaki Associates, Integrated Environments. Washington D.C.:
Spacemaker Press.
Smola, Karen Wey and Charlotte D. Sutton. 2002. “Generation differences: revisiting
generational work values for the new millennium.” Journal of Organizational Behavior.
23: 363-382.
Stevenson, Elizabeth. 1977. Park Maker: A Life of Frederick Law Olmsted. New York:
MacMillan.
Swaffield, Simon. 2002. “Social Change and the Profession of Landscape Architecture
in the Twenty-First Century.” Landscape Journal . 21(1): 183-189.
Tombesi, Paolo. 2001. “A true south for design? The new division of labour in
architecture.” Architectural Research Quarterly. (5)2: 171-180.
Twenge, Jean M. 2010. “A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational
Differences.” Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 201-210.
Turner, Rodney J, Keegan, Anne E, and Lynn Crawford. 2002. Delivering Improved
Project Management Maturity Through Experiential Learning.” Project Management. 8:
72-81.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2013. “What is the definition of telework?”
Accessed April 14, 2013. www.opm.gov/FAQS/QA.aspx?fid=88348d96-ddf7-40b39126-66c88abe1b00&pid=3e5ac2b0-3a30-42b0-85b6-00981489e8bd.
U.S. Small Business Administration. 2013. “Hire a Contractor or Employee?”
Accessed May12, 2013. www.sba.gov/content/independent-contractors-vs-employees.
Verespej, Michael A. 2001. "The Compelling Case for Telework." Industry Week.
250(12): 23.

54

Vogus, Timothy J & Kathleen M Sutcliffe. 2001. On the road to mindfulness: Requisite
variety and firm performance. Refereed invited presentation at the Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management Conference, Ivey School of Business, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Wagner, Cynthia G. 2004. “Fear and Loathing in the Virtual Workforce.” The Futurist.
38(2): 6-7.
Wheelwright, John B. “Richard Upjohn, Churchman and Architect.” The New England
Quarterly. 12(3): 500-509.
Weisman, Winston. 1972. “The Commercial Architecture of George B. Post.” Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians 32(3): 176-203.

55