Rob Harris argues that space utilisation patterns are changing, probably for good. That means our approach to planning and measuring the workplace also needs to change.

• What are the current guidelines on occupancy densities?
• What is the impact of higher utilisation?

More and more office buildings are being transformed. They are evolving from static office environments with some ancillary meeting space into dynamic meeting places with some static ancillary office space.

While perhaps simplifying and overstating the case to make the point, the essence of this statement is true.

There is a fundamental change taking place to the way in which office space is used and managed, a change driven by organisational transformations and enabled by technology solutions.

More and more office occupiers are introducing flexible working styles to improve efficiency and effectiveness, allowing staff to become highly mobile and to make work/life choices.

One consequence of these trends is that expensive and valuable property is being used far more efficiently than in the past, and new standards for best practice in space management are emerging: the Holy Grail of spaceless growth has arrived.

A small but very important consequence of this has yet to be widely recognised: our traditional understanding of occupancy densities requires updating.

The occupancy density metric with which we are all familiar is not actually about square metres per person; rather it reflects square metres per desk.

This was fine in an era when everyone 'owned' a desk, but the key difference with the new 'dynamic meeting places with some ancillary office space' is that they are not only occupied more intensively, but they are also utilised more intensively.

More people share desks, and so greater numbers of people are supported by a given building at a given time. In short, we need to complement the desk density metric (which will remain integral to building regulations) with a building utilisation metric to reflect flexible working styles, thereby allowing more accurate demand planning.

Existing occupancy benchmarks

Before looking at the evidence in favour of a new metric, it is worth reminding ourselves of the current guidelines on occupancy densities.

There are a number of sources that can be used for benchmarking data, and these are shown in Figure 1.

The data are not very consistent, ranging between around 12-20m2 per person. However, based on a knowledge of the various studies and their sampling, it is reasonable to suggest that a range of 14-16m2 is most representative.

As noted above, one of the problems with traditional density benchmarks is that they generally refer to workstation density, not people density.

Until quite recently these were synonymous, but recent changes to work styles, enabled by developments in ICT, have begun to change this simple picture.

There are two principle ways of achieving higher occupancy densities. First, space allocations per person are reduced, in a process sometimes referred to by space planners as 'max-packing'.

For employees in open plan, there is simply less space around their workstations; while for others there is less enclosed space and more open plan, allowing higher densities; and space is generally planned with greater efficiency.

Increased efficiency through higher densities can have an immediate impact, and is a simple measure with which to communicate more prudent use of resources to the CFO. It does, of course, have limitations imposed by building regulations relating to fire escapes, WC provision, and so on.

Figure 1. Key occupancy density benchmarking reports.

The second method involves managing the work environment more dynamically. It is well known that traditional office layouts are, typically, half empty for most of the time due to people being out of the office.

Many organisations have introduced hot-desking, desk sharing and flexible work styles in order to improve utilisation. Such initiatives allow a building to support more people in the same amount of space.

Their impact on overall densities can be dramatic, often reducing an organisation's appetite for space by around 20-30 per cent.

This phenomenon is now widely referred to as 'spaceless growth', and there is increasing anecdotal evidence that the trend is permanent rather than simply a response to economic pressures.

What is the impact of higher utilisation?

Figure 2 shows the difference between a traditional, fixed workstation environment and one where flexible work styles are introduced.

In scenario one everyone has their own desk, and the building is filled to the legal limit.

In scenario two, 100 people retain owned desks, while the remaining desks support 1.6 workers per desk (those retaining owned desks are typically administrative staff and those requiring greater security). The result is a 43 per cent increase in headcount supported.

The occupancy density remains the same - building regulations cannot be exceeded. But whereas in the first scenario the desks are actually occupied at a typical 50-60 per cent (due to absenteeism, working away from the office, training etc.), in the latter, desk utilisation is pushed higher. In this example the building utilisation rate is 1:1.4 (i.e. 1 desk per 1.4 people).

Figure 2. The impact of flexible working on building utilisation.

Where is the evidence?

Before a building utilisation metric can be accepted alongside the more traditional desk density metric, the case has to be proven that flexible working is a genuine option for a wide range of occupiers.

The evidence is patchy, but it is growing rapidly as the list of organisations that are known to have implemented at least some degree of flexible working lengthens.

Figure 3 shows a sample of organisations whose programmes have been reported in the trade and national press.

Figure 3. A sample of organisations adopting flexible working styles.

What is clear from this sample is the diversity of the organisations implementing flexible working: it is no longer the preserve of technology companies promoting their products.

Published articles about flexible working styles are usually more descriptive than quantitative, and so hard evidence of their impact is difficult to find.

One study that did provide some numbers was produced by the National Audit Office in 200611. This report cited a number of case studies, which are shown in Figure 4. The overall utilisation achieved is 1:1.3, with 5,376 people sharing desks.

Figure 4. Flexible working desk ratios.  Source: Adapted from Guscott et al, 2006

Conclusion