Hybrid Work and Co-Working Layouts Save Space

Can the rules your organization adopt for Hybrid Work have an impact on space utilization?

Is “Square Feet per Workstation” the best metric for assessing the efficient use of space?

Measures of space utilization should consider “occupancy” as hybrid work practices and/or co-working can impact space utilization. Are there ways to improve space utilization with the Respond! office furniture system?

This post examines the issue in detail. When efficient space utilization is a consideration, you will learn that not all Hybrid Work strategies are the same.

Concepts Explained

To facilitate discussion, first consider the following explanations of “Hybrid Work” and “Co-Working”

Hybrid Work Practices

Hybrid Work Practices are those rules and policies in organizations that enable WFH (Work From Home) for their staff. There are many variations of WFH. There is no universal form of WFH policies. Some organizations allow full-time WFH. Others mandate certain days in the office. For many organizations, WFH is a resounding success. Others see reductions in productivity. I believe safe to say that WFH policies are still evolving.

Another phrase that is also used in this context is WFO (Work from Office), obviously the opposite of WFH.

In the current employment environment, finding people to hire is a difficult task, WFH is a benefit that is attractive to many and maybe the deciding factor in accepting a role with an organization.

Co-Working Space Plans

Co-Working spaces are those places where multiple organizations and individuals jointly occupy an office facility. Typically, the occupants in a co-working facility pay a monthly fee that is determined by the type of office and amenities they choose. It is an attractive business model because companies can commit to exactly the space they need. They can avoid upfront costs for infrastructure such as tenant building improvements, furniture, property insurance, and security.

For a startup organization, co-working reduces upfront investment and allows the startup right-size their spaces as they grow.

One form of co-working involves devoting specific workstations, or rooms, to specific companies.

The other form, usually adopted by individuals or gig workers is to work at any desk in an area designated for random occupancy. For some businesses, these approaches can also be blended according to the differing needs of individuals.

The facilities that provide co-working space, especially those with greater amounts of random occupancy areas, might suffer underutilization as there are peaks and valleys in the habits of occupants. For example, some people might elect to work from home on Mondays and/or Fridays. This creates peak demand on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. I will refer to this as “scheduling inefficiency” for the purpose of this blog post. If we had precise and predictable scheduling, we could be more precise in our calculation of the number of workstations required in a co-working facility.

In the past, co-working was typically managed by an independent business. Larger employers are now exploring the concept for their own facilities and organizations because of the benefits of flexible space. many are adopting this to enable “remote working” teams.

Six Examples to Consider

In the six scenarios below, I make some estimates of the number of workstations required and the space required for 100 workers depending on assumptions about hybrid work practices and scheduling efficiency. My goal is to make comparisons between the examples.

#1 Do Nothing

In the “do nothing” approach, every occupant continues to have a workstation that is their assigned place to work. They do not share it with others. Let’s call this the “conventional practice” for space planning.

This scenario represents a benchmark as well as the way some employers might act (or not act) in the way they plan space. To make the calculations in the other scenarios easier to understand, I am arbitrarily suggesting the “do nothing” choice results in 120 square feet per occupant or 12,000 square feet for 100 occupants. Your organization might begin its analysis with a different size assumption but the comparisons I make regarding other scenarios will hold.

#2 WFH is allowed with a designated WFO day

While employees may appreciate this practice, it does little to enhance space utilization. If everyone is expected in the office one day per week, each person needs a workstation. This is no more space-efficient than scenario #1. It still uses 120 square feet per person and still requires 100 workstations.

#3 WFH one day per week, no designated WFO day

In this example, an employer allows their employees to work one day per week from home. This might seem to lend itself to a co-working space plan but in practice, most users will elect Monday or Friday for their WFO day. Assume that scheduling inefficiency is assigned a factor of 0.8 (20% inefficient) The scheduling inefficiency obviates the possibility of creating a co-working space plan. The space plan sill uses 120 square feet per person, and 12,000 square feet in total for 100 people.

#4 WFH two days per week, no designated WFO day

The possibility for planning co-working depends on the work patterns of the staff. If two days of WFH are allowed and they tend to be Mondays and Fridays, then a co-working space plan is probably not a good idea. However, if teams can be scheduled for WFO on different days, this might be a facility that could be configured for co-working.

If we assume that workstations are used by 100 individuals three days per week (60% occupancy) and we could schedule usage perfectly, we could plan space with 60 workstations. However, it is not practical to assume perfect scheduling so if we prudently adjust for scheduling inefficiency (dividing by 0.8, or increasing by 25%), our net workstations needed is 75. Our total space required is 9,000 square feet.

#5 WFH three days per week, no designated WFO day

If your staff is working from home for three days per week, you have real opportunities to implement a space-saving co-working facility plan.

If we assume that workstations are used by 100 individuals two days per week (40"% occupancy) and we could schedule usage perfectly, we could plan space with 40 workstations. Since it is not practical to assume perfect scheduling, we prudently adjust our estimate upward by 25% and plan 50 workstations in our layout.

These 50 workstations occupy 6,000 square feet, or 50% less space than compared to #1, the “do nothing” approach.

#6 WFH four days per week, no designated WFO day

This is a no-brainer for implementing a co-working space. Perfectly scheduled, you could use 20 workstations. With an allowance of an additional 25% to adjust for inefficient scheduling, 25 workstations might suffice. These would consume only 3.000 square feet, a 75% reduction from the “do nothing” approach to the space plan.

Even if you inflate your workstation needs to 30 or more workstations, the space savings are still substantial.

Example Summary

Five Key Takeaways

1. Certain Hybrid Work Strategies enable space-saving co-working office layouts. If your employees spend more than 40% of their time working from home, co-working space plans can make sense.

2. Organizations should consider scheduling practices to enable co-working spaces. If a facility has to accommodate all staff on any day, co-working space plans cannot function. Schedule mandated WFO on different days for different groups.

3. If WFH is efficient and practical for an organization, co-working space for scheduled WFO can save large amounts of commercial real estate. Well-crafted strategies for WFH that consider space utilization can benefit organizations as well as individuals.

4. Random Occupancy Co-Working saves space. Assigned workstations do not save space. Design workstations that can be used in many different ways.

5. Respond! allows organizations to evolve WFH strategies and co-working with minimal costs for change. As organizations evolve their Hybrid Work practices, Respond! can provide flexibility. Since there are no power drops that constrain layouts, and since every item is easy to move, organizations can craft and re-craft hybrid work policies to fit their situation. When situations are fluid, change is easy.