Optimising office space utilisation is essential when a workplace contains empty offices while employees still struggle to find somewhere suitable to work. A large meeting room may be occupied by one person on a video call. A faculty office may sit unused while its occupant works elsewhere. At the same time, colleagues may be missing the places where they used to meet.
The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division’s conversation with CoreNet Global and OpenSensors explores these tensions. Its utilisation programme is helping the facilities team consider which kinds of space people need, how those spaces could be shared and what would make a change worthwhile.
Look at the fit between activity and space
The facilities team had studied at least 60 conference rooms. Within that sample, it found many instances of one or two people using rooms intended for 20 or 30. Some were joining remote meetings or using the room as a place to work between other activities.
That finding creates several possible responses. Smaller rooms, bookable workpoints and places for focused calls could meet some of the demand currently landing in large rooms. It also raises questions about availability: do people choose a large room because it is suitable, or because there is nowhere else to go?
Large rooms still had a purpose. The discussion specifically acknowledged events such as grand rounds and other meetings with episodic demand. A room can be lightly used across a week and still be essential at a particular time.
The useful analysis therefore combines frequency of use, group size, activity and peak demand. It helps teams decide which rooms to retain, which alternatives to provide and which changes need testing before a refit.
Design around how people now work
For clinical faculty, the relationship between office and workplace had changed. Much of the working day happened in the hospital, and some activities that once brought people back to an office could be completed remotely. The facilities team also wanted to restore opportunities for colleagues to meet.
One response was a physician hub combining shared areas with 22 private focus rooms. Faculty joining the hub gave up their dedicated office in return for access to a different mix of spaces.
At the time of the recording, the hub had 105 members. The team anticipated a larger membership over time. Those figures describe an early stage of adoption, rather than a completed evaluation of the new arrangement.
A separate staff hotelling suite was also being prepared from space a department had released, described as roughly 35 desks and offices. It was expected to open after the recording. The examples show how utilisation evidence can inform several different responses to underuse, each shaped by the activities of the people involved.
Make the benefit tangible for each department
Giving up a familiar office can be difficult even when it is used infrequently. The Chicago team allowed departments to see and question their data before working through possible changes. Understanding a department’s goals helped the facilities team develop options that addressed its concerns.
Those options could include better retained space, closer working relationships or access to a shared facility. Functional needs still mattered. Roles requiring confidentiality could not simply be treated as interchangeable with other desk-based work.
The practical lesson is to define what people will gain, as well as what will change. A move into shared space needs workable booking, the right room mix and a credible answer to what happens when demand is high. Staff need to understand how the arrangement will support their work.
Test the proposal before committing to it
For a workplace team facing a similar question, a useful first exercise is to compare a small set of options: retain the current layout, introduce a limited shared area, or make a more substantial reconfiguration. Each should be tested against busy periods, growth assumptions and activities that need particular facilities.
Existing room records, booking information and employee feedback can explain parts of the picture. Reliable utilisation and occupancy measurements can fill important gaps. None of those sources should be assumed to answer every question on its own.
At OpenSensors, Tessellate brings this evidence together with the customer’s brief to support scenario modelling, risk assessment and decision reports for different stakeholders. That can help a team explore whether changing its room mix, sharing offices or consolidating an area is a sensible next step. The scope and evidence needed depend on the decision.
Agree how you will know the change worked
The division planned further studies after consolidation. That reflects a useful discipline: agree the outcome measures while designing the change, then review the working environment once people have had time to use it.
Possible measures include availability during busy periods, how well room capacity matches group size, use of shared workpoints and staff experience. Financial outcomes should include the cost of making and operating the change, as well as any capacity released.
If you are reviewing meeting rooms, shared offices or a future workplace brief, bring the available data and the decision you need to make. We can help identify the gaps and develop practical options to test with the people affected.
