The Pros and Cons of Enterprise Meeting Room Choices

August 20, 2024 by David Danto

Having spent four decades designing, building, and operating enterprise conference rooms, I’ve seen just about every possible setup. From the traditional to the trendy, each design for general-purpose rooms has its pros and cons. The rule of thumb that we sometimes forget is that the space itself is a limited resource. Generally, the more we restrict what can be done in a room, the less value it has to an enterprise. So, keeping that in mind, let’s delve into the common room types, their benefits and drawbacks, and why some ideas that only permit narrow usage have not shown longevity (and should remain as extinct as dinosaurs.)

The Classic Oval or Rectangular Table 

The most traditional setup is a long table with chairs on each side, reminiscent of the classic boardroom. These rooms are versatile and suitable for both in-person and remote meetings. The longer the room, the more sophisticated the technology that supports it needs to be, with additional microphones, speakers, cameras, displays, and occasionally custom programming.

Pros:

• Culturally comfortable and familiar
• Scalable for different room sizes
• Versatile for various meeting types

Cons:

• High-end aesthetic issues sometimes take precedence over functionality (don’t put holes in my table)
• The bigger the room, the longer the table, the worse the front-of-room cameras perform

 

The Huddle Room

The huddle room concept emerged in the early 2010s to meet the need for smaller, flexible meeting spaces in agile workplaces with scarce private offices. These rooms, designed for two to (maybe) six people, are tech-friendly and perfect for spontaneous meetings.

 

Pros:

• Efficient use of space
• Promotes informal, creative collaboration
• Easy-to-use technology

Cons:

• Limited to small groups
• Lack of privacy for sensitive discussions
• Simplicity may mislead users about larger room setups

 

The Flexible Space

Flexible spaces can adapt to changing needs with stackable tables and chairs, often divided by temporary walls. This space can serve as one or more meeting rooms, a classroom, a theater, and a dining space. The technology required is more complex, sometimes needing advanced control systems to manage different layouts and connectivity.

Pros:

• Adaptable for various meeting types and sizes
• Maximizes space use

Cons:

• High cost and complexity of technology
• Often requires support staff for setup and operation
• Potential for more downtime due to the likely complexity of any technical issues

 

The Campfire or Wildfire

This setup (typically a subset of the Flexible Space) involves multiple tables arranged in a large hollow square, allowing clear views for all participants. It supports larger groups and fosters open communication, which is ideal for advisory boards or collaborative groups where each seated participant might have a tent card in front of them with their name and title.

I’m highlighting this layout because there have been a couple of technical solutions developed specifically for use in the hollow part of the square, utilizing a separate, low display and video camera facing each side. Polycom had a product called Centro, but discontinued it due to a lack of market interest. Cisco is now making a product eerily similar to the Centro, but I’m not sure if it will prove to be any more popular.

Pros:

• Supports larger groups while maintaining intimacy
• Fosters open communication
• Can be enhanced with specialized technology for remote collaboration

Cons:

• High setup and maintenance costs
• Requires a larger physical space
• Specialized equipment reduces flexibility

 

The Soft Space

Soft Spaces feature comfortable furniture and a relaxed atmosphere, perfect for longer meetings and brainstorming sessions. These rooms often include videoconferencing gear, practical and digital whiteboards, and multiple displays.

 

Pros:

• Creates a comfortable and inviting environment
• Promotes creativity and extended engagement
• Supports various activities from casual discussions to intensive planning sessions

Cons:

• Difficult to effectively integrate collaboration technology that emulates the casual experience for the remote user
• Informal layout can hinder focus and productivity

 

Up Against The Wall: The Curved Table 

This design involves a curved table facing the wall. The concept was first popularized in the mid-2000s as immersive telepresence, boasting a more lifelike experience of the remote participants than traditional videoconferencing. (I can, and in fact did write far longer essays on the phenomenon.)  It ultimately failed in the market – not due to the huge expense to purchase and install (and then remove) but instead due to its single-purpose nature.

Today, we have a similar experience – branded this time as Front Row – ostensibly not for improving the video of the remote participants, but in this case to emphasize non-video content like chat and shared screens. The concept is to give in-room participants the same multimedia experience that a remote user would have on their notebook. While this curved-table-facing-the-wall experience may seem like a novel idea to some, and may have some very narrow ideal applications, I believe the “face the wall’s” history of failure and inherent limitations make it a design destined for extinction.

Pros:

• Provides realistic-sized views of remote participants
• Allows local participants to easily see sidebar chatter and shared content

Cons:

• Pretty much useless for in-room collaboration
• Lack of flexibility makes it impractical for shared spaces

 

The evolution of general-purpose meeting room designs highlights the need for flexibility, functionality, and a balance between in-room and remote collaboration. While new technologies and trends will continue to emerge, it’s crucial to learn from past failures and not repeat them.

In that context, the curved table facing the wall is the dinosaur of meeting room setups. Just as the immersive telepresence rooms of yesteryear failed, so too will more modern iterations that are designed around a single purpose. They prioritize meeting with remote participants at the expense of in-room collaboration, a balance that no enterprise can afford to tilt so drastically unless it is the full-time requirement of one specific, dispersed team.

If someone disagrees and suggests otherwise, just remind them of the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”