Understanding the Landscape

The Challenge

The Problem

Before jumping to solutions, we needed to understand why employees avoided the office. Through stakeholder kick-off workshop three pain points emerged:

• Fragmented workflows – Daily workflow was split across floors and buildings.

• Inefficient in-person meeting – Employees at times walked 08+ minutes between meetings

• One-size-fits-all spaces – Organically growing departments left collaborations for hallways and digital means.

The real question wasn’t about aesthetics. It was about understanding how 35 different departments actually worked.

1

2

To capture a holistic view of employee experiences, we initiated a two-layered research process combining quantitative and qualitative methods.

Phase 1: Anonymous Department Survey (94% participation) focusing on:

We designed a 22-question survey focusing on:

• Work style preferences (individual vs. collaborative time split)

• Current pain points and frustrations

• Technology and equipment needs

• Commute willingness factors

Research That Revealed Hidden Patterns

Phase 2: Department Head Interviews (35 sessions)

Key Insight: 68% of employees valued “spontaneous collaboration opportunities” over dedicated desks, but current layouts made chance encounters nearly impossible.

One-on-one conversations revealed operational realities surveys couldn’t capture:

Strategic Decision: To test our approach, we began with a pilot project—the Facility Management Department of 88 employees at the core of operational logistics, this group became the perfect testbed to explore how spatial design could elevate organizational performance.

Customer service required 24/7 shift coverage with minimal handoff friction.

Sales teams traveled 70% of the time and needed hotel-style desking

• Office attendance: 42% → 76% (+34 percentage points)

• Employee satisfaction: 58/100 → 84/100 (NPS increased by 26 points)

• Collaboration frequency: 2.3 → 4.1 interactions per day (78% increase)

• Meeting room utilization: 65% → 89% efficiency

• “I have space when I need it”: 41% → 88% agreement

I was skeptical about losing my assigned desk, but now I see why it works. When I’m traveling Monday-Wednesday, someone else uses that spot. When I’m back Thursday-Friday, I sit with my team. No wasted space, and I actually feel more connected than when I had a desk collecting dust.”

I actually look forward to Mondays now. My team sits together, and I can grab someone for a 5-minute question instead of scheduling a video call.”

Why pilot ??

Testing with one department validated hypotheses before committing millions. It also cultivated internal champions who promoted the initiative across other departments.

Why two phased workshop ??

Workshop 1 captured the team’s raw needs. The two-week gap that followed allowed me to translate ideas into tangible prototypes, while participants gathered feedback from rest of the employees of the departments on the key takeaways.

Workshop 2 then grounded the discussions in reality, ultimately reducing post-launch complaints by an estimated 60%.

Why employee representatives vs. all-hands ??

8-10 diverse voices (mix of seniority, roles, work styles) provided richer insights than 80+ person town halls. Representatives became change ambassadors to their peers.

Why journey mapping over standard surveys ??

Surveys tell you what people say they do. Journey mapping reveals what they actually do. The disconnections amongst microteams did not clearly reflect in the survey but emerged in the spatial mapping activities.

What I Learned

1. In workplace design, participation equals adoption — true transformation happens when employees co-create the change.

2. UX research methods such as journey mapping, low-fidelity spatial prototyping, and affinity clustering can effectively translate into physical spatial experiences.

3. Piloting before scaling allows data-backed learning loops, ensuring long-term organizational trust in transformation initiatives.