Is the organization ready for the building?

Upon the completion of a new office, success is visible. The building is finished, the technology works, and the agreed savings are within reach. A ribbon can be cut, and the project team can look back on a concrete result.

But at that same moment, an important part of the change still needs to prove itself: will people use the new environment and technology as needed to achieve the organizational goals?

Photo credit Pexels - Diva Plavalaguna

That question remains underexposed in many activity-based working (ABW) processes. An integrated ABW process brings together three changes: the physical work environment changes, ICT supports location- and time-independent working, and the organization develops an appropriate way of collaborating, leading, and utilizing space.

These components are interdependent. A well-designed building has little value if employees do not have the right digital tools at their disposal. Good ICT solves little if the work environment does not adequately support the work. And even if the building and technology function excellently, the result remains suboptimal if the socio-organizational aspect lags behind. This aligns with the principle of joint optimization by Albert Cherns (1976): only when building, technology, and organization reinforce each other does one plus one become more than two.

Only when building, technology, and organization reinforce each other does one plus one become more than two.

However, in many ABW projects, most attention is focused on the physical and technical changes. These are concrete, plannable, and easily measurable. There is a design, a budget, an implementation schedule, and a moment when the building and systems are delivered.

There is often no comparable delivery moment for socio-organizational change. This becomes visible in the way people use the new possibilities in their daily work: by collaborating more easily across departments, sharing knowledge better, forming new teams faster, and consciously choosing an environment that suits the activity.

Delivery is not the same as utilization

Whether the integrated concept works only becomes visible in daily use. With a successful implementation, employees choose an environment that suits their activity, share knowledge more easily, and collaborate more frequently across team boundaries.

That result is not a given. Employees may continue working according to old routines from day one, for example because they are insufficiently familiar with the possibilities or agreements. The working method may also become diluted later on, when fixed workstations and territorial team zones emerge.

The physical and digital preconditions can be the same in all these situations. The difference arises in the way the organization uses them. The physical and digital project goals may have been achieved, while the intended organizational value may or may not be created.

What is quickly measurable feels like a tangible return.

The returns on real estate and ICT can often be concretely determined upon completion. The number of square meters has been reduced, sustainable materials have been used, and new systems can be tested. Such results are visible, measurable, and easy to incorporate into a business case.

With regard to the socio-organizational component, the return cannot be determined at a single point in time. Better collaboration, more knowledge sharing, and greater adaptability must develop in practice. Many organizations therefore treat this value as something that remains to be seen.

What is quickly and objectively measurable is considered hard yield. What develops gradually is soon regarded as soft and uncertain.

What is quickly and objectively measurable is considered hard return. What develops gradually is soon regarded as soft and uncertain. Therein lies a paradox: it is precisely the socio-organizational component that largely determines whether investments in buildings and technology yield their full value.

A systematic review by Masoudinejad and Veitch from 2023 underscores why a broader assessment is needed. The effects of ABW on factors contributing to organizational productivity appear to be mixed. According to the researchers, organizations must therefore weigh the savings on real estate against the broader effects of their design choices on organizational functioning.

Difficult to measure does not mean that socio-organizational value is unimportant or optional. These goals must also be monitored. This can be done by looking beyond costs and staffing at employee experiences, the use of the work environment, collaboration between teams, and the ability to adapt working methods to changing circumstances.

The three changes must be organized together.

If ABW is an integral process, the socio-organizational component cannot wait to begin until the building and ICT are virtually ready. Teams must investigate in advance which activities they perform and which physical and digital environment suits them. Within the fixed principle of non-personal workspaces, they make agreements regarding presence, accessibility, collaboration, concentration, and space usage.

After implementation, there is no need to maintain a change program for this purpose. The working method becomes part of normal management and collaboration. Managers discuss what works well with their teams, practical agreements adapt as the work changes, and new employees learn how the work environment is used from the start.

A building and ICT systems, too, do not continue to function without management after completion. The same applies to the socio-organizational component. Responsibility for this belongs within the day-to-day organization: with managers and teams that put the new way of working into practice.

Partial success is not yet integral success

An ABW project can be technically and structurally successful, yet still fall short of expectations as an integral change. The building may have been completed on time, the ICT may function excellently, and real estate costs may have decreased. However, if the organization fails to sufficiently utilize the potential of the building and technology, a significant portion of the intended value remains untapped.

Physical and digital success is visible upon delivery. Social-organizational success becomes visible in daily practice.

Physical and digital success is visible upon delivery. Social-organizational success becomes visible in daily work. It is precisely that success that determines whether the first two investments truly pay off.

The central question is therefore:

Is the organization ready to truly utilize the potential of the building and the technology?

Sources

• Cherns, A. (1976). The Principles of Sociotechnical Design . Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602900806

• Engelen, L., Chau, J., Young, S., Mackey, M., Jeyapalan, D. & Bauman, A. (2019). Does activity-based working impact health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review . Building Research & Information, 47(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1440958

• Masoudinejad, S. & Veitch, J. A. (2023). The effects of activity-based workplaces on contributors to organizational productivity: A systematic review . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101920

Nassau is happy to think along with you.

Every work environment requires a unique approach. In a brief, no-obligation consultation, we will explore together what your organization needs and which options align with those needs.

Schedule a no-obligation consultation