The Challenge

A tech scale-up with 1,200 employees - growing to 1,300 - believed its office was reaching capacity as meeting rooms felt full and peak days seemed congested. Leadership assumed relocation or expansion was necessary.

To validate this, they used Workplaced Taxonomy with 700 Dynamics respondents, scaled to the full workforce using the Create Persona and Growth Multiplier features. They recognized that choosing to stay or move is not just about cost, but a decision influencing:

Space efficiency
Commuting impacts
Productivity alignment
Retention risk

What We Assessed

Solo vs group activities: Most work occurred individually or in 1-4 person meetings, not in large rooms.
Personality & sensory profiles: Big Five traits + acoustic/visual comfort needs informed of the recommended mix of settings.
Schedule behavior: A slight mismatch existed, but leadership did not want to change hybrid schedules, so modelling kept schedules exactly as-is.

Simulation Using Taxonomy

True Space Requirement

Current office: 11,500 sqm.
Assumed need: 13,500 sqm.
Actual need: 10,000 sqm.

Desk & Sharing Ratio

Recommended ratio: 1:1.4 (0.7 desk per employee).
Peak occupancy < 72%.
150 desks unnecessary → 750 sqm freed.

Meeting Rooms

80% of meetings = 1-4 attendees.
Right-sizing oversized rooms unlocked 405 sqm.

Circulation & Support Zones

Secondary circulation reduced from 20% → 18%, freeing 345 sqm.

Cultural Alignment

With a push toward a more results-oriented culture, Taxonomy recommended more spontaneous interaction zones, fewer oversized formal rooms, and improved zoning – contributing to:

7% improvement in productivity alignment.
5% improvement in retention score, driven by better cultural and behavioral fit.

Note: Insights were generated without occupancy analytics; adding them would refine actual vs reported use and the recommended configuration.

Recommendations

Stay in the current office
Reconfigure: add small rooms and focus pods, right-size meeting rooms, reduce circulation, repurpose 350 desks.
Keep current schedule (per leadership preference)

Results

The company can confidently stay.
Productivity score improved by 7%, driven by better space alignment.
Retention score improved by 5%, through better cultural alignment.
Commute impact unchanged since location and schedules didn't shift.

Financial Impact

By deciding to stay, the company avoided taking an extra 2,000 sqm, saving $1.2M annually at $600 per sqm, plus unlocking 1,500 sqm internally.

Results exclude productivity & retention gains; for example, even a 1% drop in turnover equals: 13 employees retained → $780,000 saved.

Should I Stay In My Current Office, Or Move To A New Location?

Should I Stay In My Current Office, Or Move To A New Location?