ITO / Study 02Workplace strategy + occupancy planning
A workplace decision, worked through. Explore how a growth forecast becomes a capacity assessment, a set of options, and a practical recommendation.
Illustrative workplace study. Fictional organization, scenario, and sample data. This is a demonstration of an approach, not a completed client engagement or an actual ITO result.
220 → 253Assumed headcount over 12 months
140Existing primary workpoints
152Modeled busy-day demand at month 12
01
The brief
Growth is coming. More space is one possible answer.
A fictional technology company has 220 employees assigned to one office, 140 primary workpoints, and a hybrid working model. Leadership expects 15% headcount growth over the next year and wants to understand its options before making another space commitment.
The business question is broader than whether everyone can find a desk. Teams need space for focused work, calls, collaboration, and confidential discussions.
The decision to support
Can the organization accommodate growth within its existing office while maintaining a useful range of work settings?
Scope of this example
A demand forecast, a review of assumed workplace requirements, three occupancy scenarios, and a recommendation for the next decision gate.
Executive readout
The office fits today’s modeled peak. The growth plan needs a response.
At 60% attendance, demand rises from 132 to 152 people. That creates a 12-seat shortfall against the existing 140 workpoints. With an illustrative target of keeping 10% of seats available, the month-12 requirement is 169 seats. A 170-workpoint reconfiguration is worth testing, but its physical feasibility has not been established.
02
Make the inputs visible
A transparent basis for the decision.
Every input below is invented for this study. In a real engagement, the first task would be to reconcile the information and agree on assumptions with the people responsible for it.
Sample inputs only. The 10% reserve is a chosen planning assumption, not an industry standard.
Input
Assumption
What would need validation
Assigned headcount
220 today; 253 in 12 months
HR roster, approved hiring plan, location assignments, and contractors.
Growth profile
15% total growth, phased evenly
Timing of hiring, transfers, attrition, and team-specific changes.
Busy-day attendance
60% of assigned headcount
Daily and team-level attendance, peak overlap, and seasonal variation.
Primary capacity
140 workpoints: 124 open desks + 16 enclosed-office workpoints
A seat inventory, usable equipment, access restrictions, and assignability.
Capacity reserve
10% of primary workpoints left available
An agreed tolerance for visitors, variation, and unavailable workpoints.
Demand model
One attendee needs one primary workpoint
Dedicated-seat rules, sharing eligibility, accessibility needs, and work patterns.
How the numbers are calculated
Demand = headcount × attendance, rounded up to a whole workpoint.
Capacity with reserve = demand ÷ 0.90, rounded up. The reserve is a share of total capacity.
Meeting-room chairs, phone booths, and lounge seats are excluded from primary workpoint capacity. No leased area, rent, construction cost, or verified floor plan is assumed.
03
Demand + capacity
Plan for the busy day and test the uncertainty.
The existing office has eight seats available at today’s modeled peak of 132 people. That is about 6% of capacity, already below this study’s chosen 10% reserve.
Under the assumed hiring trajectory, modeled demand first exceeds 140 seats at the month-six checkpoint. At month 12, the shortfall is 12 seats before allowing for a reserve.
A 170-seat option leaves 18 seats available at the base-case peak of 152, equivalent to 10.6% of capacity.
The 12-month capacity pictureIllustrative demand at 60% attendance
Bars show modeled demand. Lines show existing and proposed capacity, with no reserve deducted.
A weekly average can hide the constraint.
The sample attendance pattern produces a 47% weekly average, but two days reach 60%. At 253 people, an average-based calculation suggests 119 workpoints, compared with 152 on the busiest days.
Mon89
35% attendance
Tue152
60% attendance
Wed140
55% attendance
Thu152
60% attendance
Fri64
25% attendance
Synthetic weekday pattern at month 12. Percentages represent assumed daily attendance, not observed utilization. The average is calculated before rounding daily headcounts.
Does the preferred option hold up?
Expected attendees compared with 170 seats and a 153-person planning limit after the 10% reserve.
Capacity sensitivity only. It does not confirm that the mix of work settings or individual team needs can be accommodated.
Headcount
50% attendance
60% attendance
70% attendance
220 peopleCurrent
110Meets reserve
132Meets reserve
154Below reserve
253 people15% growth
127Meets reserve
152Meets reserve
178Exceeds capacity
275 people25% growth
138Meets reserve
165Below reserve
193Exceeds capacity
At 253 people and 70% attendance, demand reaches 178 and the requirement with reserve becomes 198 seats. The base-case option depends on the attendance assumption.
04
People + work settings
A seat count is only part of the program.
The team brief below is fictional. It shows the kinds of operational requirements a planning conversation would need to uncover, rather than claiming interviews or employee research took place.
Team forecasts total 253. They are illustrative allocations of the overall growth assumption, not a uniform growth rate for each team.
Team
Today
Month 12
Assumed work requirements
Engineering
80
92
Concentrated work, team problem-solving, nearby focus rooms.
Product + design
35
40
Project discussions and close access to engineering.
Confidential conversations and access to shared support.
Total assigned people
220
253
Seat sharing and peak overlap still require validation.
01
Primary workpoints
Test a total of 170, with the balance of enclosed offices and open desks informed by role requirements. Dedicated assignments would reduce the pool available for sharing.
02
Focus + calls
Use four shared focus rooms and six phone booths as an initial setting inventory to protect and test. Call-heavy work should not displace quiet work.
03
Meetings + collaboration
Assume eight meeting rooms across small, medium, and large sizes. Test their capacity and use before converting any collaboration space into desks.
04
Adjacencies + separation
Keep product and engineering within easy reach. Give customer operations an acoustically appropriate setting. Provide private settings for business operations.
These are programming assumptions, not a dimensioned layout or a verified fit. Workpoint sizes, circulation, accessibility, building services, and code compliance would need to be checked before approving a plan.
05
Compare the choices
Three routes. Different compromises.
Compare all three at the same forecast headcount of 253. Cost and disruption descriptions are qualitative working assumptions. No savings, budgets, or delivery durations have been estimated.
Option AOperational change
Manage the peaks.
140existing workpoints
Keep the current capacity and cap attendance at 126 people per day to maintain the 10% reserve. That is about 49.8% of forecast headcount.
What it takes
Agreed team schedules, dependable booking, and a plan for exceptions. Compared with the modeled peak of 152, at least 26 attendees would need to shift to another day or work remotely.
Working tradeoff
Limited physical change, but a material change to how teams coordinate and use the office.
Decision gate
Test operational acceptance and collaboration needs before treating the cap as achievable.
Option BFirst option to test
Reconfigure in place.
170proposed workpoints
Test 30 additional workpoints within the existing office. At 152 attendees, 18 seats remain available, meeting the chosen reserve in the base case.
What it takes
A measured test fit, a validated setting mix, stakeholder agreement, and a costed implementation approach.
Working tradeoff
Potential construction, furniture, and relocation work. Adding seats could compromise other settings unless the layout supports both.
Decision gate
Confirm that 170 suitable workpoints fit while protecting the workplace requirements. That has not been demonstrated here.
Option CAdditional space
Expand capacity.
200workpoints to investigate
Evaluate an expansion or relocation scenario with 200 primary workpoints. The base case leaves 48 seats available, or 24% of capacity.
What it takes
Market and lease review, a site-specific program, a test fit, and a full business case for occupancy and implementation costs.
Working tradeoff
A larger space commitment and potential move disruption, with more capacity for variation and growth.
Decision gate
Establish whether greater flexibility justifies the additional commitment. No financial advantage is assumed.
06
An actionable recommendation
Test the existing office before committing to more space.
Illustrative executive recommendation
Authorize a targeted validation and test-fit study of Option B.
A 170-workpoint scenario clears the base-case capacity requirement, including the chosen reserve. It is a reasonable next option to investigate because it tests whether the existing office can support the plan before a larger real estate commitment.
This is a recommendation for the next study, not approval of a layout or a conclusion that expansion can be avoided. The next decision should follow verified demand, a feasible program, and comparable implementation and occupancy costs.
Proceed with reconfiguration if
A fit is demonstrated, critical settings are retained, sharing rules support the demand model, and the cost and disruption are acceptable.
Revisit the capacity decision if
Expected peaks exceed 153 people, growth or attendance assumptions increase, or a suitable 170-workpoint layout cannot be achieved.
Use Option A as an interim measure only where team schedules can support it. Keep Option C available if the demand, physical, or operational tests do not support staying in place.
The next steps and the people involved.
01
Confirm the demand
HR + business leaders
Reconcile assigned headcount, hiring timing, dedicated-seat needs, and the teams that need to attend together.
02
Validate attendance and capacity
Facilities + workplace planning
Review representative daily patterns, exceptional peaks, the usable seat inventory, and restrictions on sharing.
03
Test the workplace program
Planning + architect / design team
Check the 170-workpoint scenario, setting mix, adjacencies, circulation, accessibility, and building constraints.
04
Compare the business case
Finance + real estate + leadership
Compare capital and operating costs, disruption, lease timing, and flexibility. Select an option with agreed assumptions and review triggers.
What an engagement could deliver
A usable basis for the next decision.
A documented assumptions and requirements brief
A demand and capacity forecast with sensitivity analysis
A workplace program and direction for a test fit
An options comparison with constraints and decision gates
An executive recommendation and a review conversation
Scope varies with the question and the information available. Layout validation, technical design, and financial analysis would be included or coordinated where agreed.
This illustrative study contains no confidential information, client endorsements, completed-project claims, or measured outcomes.
Your question. Your context.
What decision is your team facing?
Start with the challenge. Michael can help define the information, analysis, and deliverables needed to move it forward.