A Tale of Two Tech Workplaces
Fortune 500 companies and high growth enterprises come to Jerde Analytics to help them make sense of their workplace exhaust data and bring insight and action to their workplace strategy. We’re fortunate enough to be exposed to a diversity of clients and client industries, all with different data profiles and objectives on how to support their workplace goals. Our vantage point is unique in that we’ve learned how data can best be used, and how it can also be misused. One example of inappropriate use involves benchmarking.
New clients often want us to tell them what their closest competitors are doing from the perspective of ‘data’. This usually translates to benchmark averages on assigned vs. shared seating, space utilization rates and targets, headcount-to-room ratios, and area per seat targets. We’ve found that this numerical average approach to assessing what is right for a client is shortsighted and potentially harmful.
the right questions
A better approach to benchmarking is to start with the right questions, and then address relevant metrics. Some example questions:
Hybrid Policy: How are my competitors approaching hybrid work? How often are workers expected to be onsite and who makes those decisions?
Onsite Flexibility: When onsite, how much flexibility and choice are granted to my employees to choose how and where to work?
Buzz Tolerance: What is my tolerance level for acoustic and visual control, while onsite?
Answers to these questions help us provide clients with much more relevant benchmarks. They each tie directly to a numerical proxy.
two tech clients
The contrasting approach of two technology clients is informative. Both are global titans of industry that specialize in software and hardware engineering. Within the physical environment, both companies are set up in a “team neighborhood” structure: dedicated zones with a standard set of seat and room ratios are allocated to feature teams (approx. 6 – 20 engineers) who have discretion over seating arrangements. Teams are often distributed across locations and time zones. This distribution has increased with the proliferation of hybrid work.
The profile of each client’s real estate portfolio is also similar: a headquarters which is primarily owned and operated, and a footprint outside of headquarters that is mostly leased.
Comparison
The appropriate space program for Tech Firm A differs considerably to Tech Firm B. A does not have a space deficit problem; their current footprint is sufficient given the realities of hybrid work. Onsite workers from A are mostly going to the office with the intention to perform specific tasks, rather than the ongoing needs of day-to-day work.
The benefits of a larger footprint relative to demand is that it is much more conducive to focus work, and availability of collaborative spaces, especially for virtual calls, is not an issue given healthy supply. On the flip side, this firm needs to address the buzz problem, preferably without a mandate. Options include amenity and services augmentation, the encouragement of onsite mentoring, and building an onsite events program.
Tech Firm B is in the opposite position. Conditions are regularly stressed. While there is a more generous provision of support spaces, demand often exceeds supply, resulting in a less than optimal use of space. Tasks better suited for enclosed rooms, such as virtual calls, are taken in the open and are disruptive to others. When seat availability is low, people cannot sit near their closest collaborators. If Tech Firm B is going to insist on onsite presence, they need to increase their provision of unreservable small enclosed rooms, such as phone booths and focus rooms, for 4 persons or less to support virtual collaboration with less distraction.
The benefits of a buzzy workplace are that it can be energizing for specifically new in career workers, who are looking for peer engagement and mentorship. Focus efficiency is challenging when at work, so people are more likely to do head’s down work at home where they are (possibly) more productive.
Conclusion
Hopefully it is clear that there is no “average” of Tech Firm A and B. Numerical averages – such as seat sharing, room provision, and target utilization – cannot apply to either A or B. Forcing an average calculation of Firm A and Firm B would yield a nonsensical value that is not only irrelevant for both firms, but also is potentially harmful.
Buyer beware when interpreting numerical benchmarks for your workplace.
there is no one-size-fits-all, even for competitors who seem to have so much in common.
At Jerde Analytics, insights are driven by analysis of client data that is unique to them. Industry benchmarks are used very carefully. If you feel that your firm’s workplace can benefit from greater use of data, we are happy to join you for an orientation to our project experience and services.