Redesigning Rather Than Shrinking

Low utilisation has two readings: too much space, or the wrong space. The second is more often correct and almost never the first proposal.

The practical lesson in “Redesigning Rather Than Shrinking” is to connect a measurement to a named decision without treating the number as certainty. Teams exploring boss vs leader can review boss vs leader as one source of time and project context, while retaining direct feedback and documented outcomes as the basis for interpretation.

What the data usually shows

Not uniform emptiness. Specific patterns.

For a public, independent reference related to “Redesigning Rather Than Shrinking”, consult the CIBSE Knowledge Portal. Its principles provide a useful check on scope, terminology, governance and the claims made during procurement or review.

Large rooms used by small groups.

Open desks empty while quiet space is contested.

One floor busy and another ignored.

Settings nobody uses next to settings that are always full.

That is a mismatch picture, not an excess picture.

The subdivision case

A twelve-person room hosting meetings of three is not underused space; it is misallocated space.

Dividing it into two or three smaller rooms typically raises measured utilisation sharply and resolves the shortage people complain about.

This is the single most common productive finding in meeting room data.

The missing settings

Most buildings are short of: somewhere to take a call, somewhere genuinely quiet, somewhere for two people to talk briefly.

These are cheap to create and they absorb a large share of the demand currently hitting meeting rooms.

Occupancy data shows the symptom — contested small rooms, booked phone booths — and the response is usually to look for more rooms.

The location problem

A floor that is ignored usually has a reason: distance from the lifts, poor light, nothing nearby, a reputation.

Fixing one of those is cheaper than losing the floor and frequently works.

Ask before concluding that people do not need the space.

Testing a redesign

Change one area and measure it against the rest.

Six to eight weeks either side, with the rest of the building as the control.

This is one of the few genuinely clean experiments available in facilities, and the data makes it possible.

The cost comparison

Subdivision and refurbishment cost real money and are compared unfavourably against reduction, which appears to save money.

The comparison should include what reduction costs: the days people cannot find space, the overflow, the irreversibility.

Stated that way the arithmetic frequently reverses.

What to propose first

Where the data shows mismatch rather than excess, propose redesign and measure the result.

Reduction remains available afterwards and is better informed.

The reverse order is not available, which is the argument.

What to check

Does your data show uniform low use, or a mismatch pattern?

What is your average meeting size against your average room capacity?

Is there anywhere to take a call?

And has a redesign been proposed alongside the reduction option?