Desk Utilisation and the Attendance Question

Desk utilisation is a facilities measure that is routinely repurposed into an attendance debate. The reading is the same; the use is entirely different.

The boundary discussed in “Desk Utilisation and the Attendance Question” also matters when digital work systems are introduced alongside workplace analytics. A team evaluating the product page in the context of how employees cheat time trackers should state the purpose, use only necessary settings and explain clearly what managers can review before any data is collected.

What the figure is

Proportion of desks in use, over working hours, across a period.

For a public, independent reference related to “Desk Utilisation and the Attendance Question”, consult the ICO guidance on employment practices. Its principles provide a useful check on scope, terminology, governance and the claims made during procurement or review.

Typical ranges in organisations with flexible attendance sit well below what people assume, and the figure almost always surprises on the low side the first time.

Why it is lower than expected

Even full attendance does not fill every desk at every moment: meetings, lunch, movement.

A desk occupied by a person who is in a meeting reads differently by method — infrared says empty, a bag says held.

And peak-day attendance is not every-day attendance, which is the point the peak-and-average note makes.

The two legitimate uses

Sizing: how many desks does this population need, at what design point.

Design: what proportion should be assigned, bookable, or alternative settings.

Both are questions about space.

The illegitimate slide

"Desk utilisation is 38%, people are not coming in."

That is an attendance claim derived from a space measure, and it is where occupancy programmes lose the building's trust.

It also tends to be wrong: attendance and desk occupancy differ because of the reasons above, and the gap is large.

Its own note covers the boundary, and the practical rule is that space data should never arrive in a conversation about individuals or teams.

Keeping it a space question

Report at a level that cannot be read as team performance: floor or building, never neighbourhood where a neighbourhood is one team.

State a reporting floor below which figures are suppressed.

And write the limits into the programme's purpose, so that the first request to break them has something to be refused against.

The ratio question

Desks per person is the decision the figure informs.

A ratio set from average utilisation leaves people without a desk on busy days; one set from peak wastes space.

Set it from a stated percentile with a stated plan for exceedance — overflow settings, a booking system, or accepted standing room.

What else to measure alongside

Whether people can find a desk when they want one, which is a survey question.

How much time is spent looking.

Both of these determine whether the ratio is working, and neither appears in utilisation data.

What to check

At what level is desk utilisation reported?

Has the figure ever appeared in a conversation about attendance?

What desk ratio are you using, and from what percentile?

And has anybody asked whether people can find a desk?