IBA Forum-Gastbeitrag Spaces influence how we feel, how we communicate with each other, and how we approach our tasks. But what effect do different office designs actually have? And what scientific findings can help us make better decisions about our spaces?
changing spaces
Office design has undergone profound change in recent years. Individual offices are disappearing, while open-plan spaces and flexible workplace concepts are becoming the norm. The expectation is that open spaces will foster creativity, communication, and community.
Spaces have an impact — though not always as intended. Openness can facilitate collaboration, but it can also lead to distraction, stress, and a sense of constant observation. At the same time, studies show that while the classic individual office enables concentration, it hinders spontaneous encounters and informal exchange. No model is inherently better; what matters is the fit between space, activity, and culture.
Accordingly, research is increasingly focusing on how office design actually works: What effects do open spaces have on satisfaction and collaboration? What do activity-based offices (ABOs) really achieve? And why do some employees experience hybrid working environments as liberating, while others find them stressful? The following research findings provide initial answers to these questions and illustrate how complex the interplay between space, work, and organisation truly is.
how spaces affect us
A recent systematic review by Schuller et al. (2025) demonstrates how strongly office design affects the body. The researchers evaluated 33 empirical studies that examined measurable stress responses such as heart rate variability, skin conductance, and cortisol levels. The result: office design influences not only how we feel, but also how our bodies react. Natural elements proved particularly effective. Plants, flowers, and views of greenery measurably reduced physiological stress activation. The decisive factor was the amount: a moderate level of greenery (around 8 to 12% of the visible area) had a relaxing effect, whereas too much greenery could be overwhelming. Studies on wooden surfaces, however, produced mixed results: in half of the cases (56%), some stress-reducing effects were observed; a third of the results showed no effect, and around 11% even indicated increased stress reactions, particularly in darker wooden environments. Differences between open, semi-open, and closed offices also remained inconclusive. Fragrances such as essential oils had highly individual effects: what relaxed some people increased the pulse rate of others. Subtle and atmospheric qualities — such as how “natural”, “relaxing”, or “homely” a room feels — have rarely been considered, nor has the mediating role of sensory perception across different senses.
Research into biophilic (nature-inspired) design shows that an appropriate combination of visual and auditory natural elements, which both strengthens working memory and reduces physiological stress responses, is particularly effective. However, achieving this effect requires more than aesthetic intuition. Environmental psychologist Sally Augustin speaks of “design with science” — an approach that uses psychological insights rather than relying on trends. Colour, light, acoustics, and materials have measurable effects on concentration, communication, and recovery. Those who design with science can tailor spaces to specific activities: warm lighting promotes relaxation, cool tones enhance focus, and natural materials foster a sense of belonging.
how open should an office be?
Another systematic literature review by Gerlitz and Hülsbeck (2023) evaluated 46 empirical studies on the three dominant office types: individual offices, open-plan offices, and activity-based offices (ABOs). The results are surprisingly clear: the traditional individual office is the most productive working environment, particularly for knowledge-intensive activities. While open-plan offices are often justified by lower space costs and greater interaction, the data show that they often come at the expense of productivity. Distractions from noise, lack of privacy, and limited control over the workspace reduce performance, satisfaction, and wellbeing. ABOs — the flexible use of different work zones within an open-plan office — lie between these two extremes. When implemented well, they can enhance satisfaction and concentration, but this requires careful organisation of time, space, and team processes. Without clear rules and managerial support, there is a risk of disorientation and productivity loss.
A recent meta-analysis by our team, covering 36 studies involving nearly 8,000 employees, shows that ABOs encourage movement and collaboration more than other office concepts. Employees change workstations more frequently, are more physically active, and have more contact with colleagues. However, perceived control over the workspace — a key feature of this design — showed no effect across the studies. Contextual differences are particularly striking: in the private sector, ABOs show significantly more positive effects than in the public sector. For instance, changes in private organisations are associated with increased perceived productivity, while employees in public organisations report not only declines in productivity but also poorer relationships with colleagues and managers, as well as a lower sense of autonomy. Regardless of sector, transitions from open-plan offices to activity-based offices tend to be more successful, while those moving from individual offices experience greater declines in job satisfaction. The key factor is therefore not only the spatial concept itself but how and where it is implemented.
What does this mean in practice?
Ultimately, the decisive factor is how spaces are introduced and developed. In a pilot project on activity-based offices at IWC Schaffhausen, Eberhardt and Lauterbach (2024) demonstrate that design is a continuous learning process: test, observe, adapt. Only practical experience reveals what truly works in daily routines. Regular testing and adjustments help to refine spatial concepts purposefully. Good design therefore arises where employees are actively involved, feedback loops are firmly established, and spatial solutions are developed collaboratively with the organisation.
Findings from research and practice show that effective interior design emerges when space, activity, and culture are considered together. Change succeeds when new spatial concepts are not only implemented in design but also embedded in everyday work and organisational culture. Spaces are effective when employees understand their purpose and can actively participate in shaping them.
Did you wonder, in this edition of The Spatial Thinkers Series, where the work-from-home aspect fits in? Of course, we haven’t forgotten it — the next issue will explore how hybrid work and flexible time models are transforming spatial arrangements. Stay tuned!
