IBA editorial team Many organisations are currently reconsidering how much of an in-office presence they expect from their employees, often based on the assumption that innovation requires physical proximity. At the same time, there is increasing pressure to develop products, services and business models more rapidly than ever before. Against this backdrop, a key question arises: what role does the office actually play in fostering creativity and innovation?
This is precisely the question addressed by the study „The office as corporate innovation hub“ conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO. It examines how office presence and the working environment influence the creativity and innovative capacity of employees in hybrid work settings, providing valuable insights for organisations, workplace strategists, office planners and HR professionals.
Presence alone does not create innovation
One of the central findings of the study is that there is no simple, direct correlation between the number of days spent in the office and innovative capacity. In other words, presence alone does not create innovation. Spending more time in the office does not automatically lead to greater creativity or innovation. Based on a survey of over 2,000 employees, the researchers identified four distinct groups with different office presence patterns and levels of innovation. Of particular relevance to practice is the finding that highly innovative groups can be found among both employees with high levels of office presence and those working predominantly in hybrid models, as well as less innovative groups in both categories. Therefore, the key insight is that innovative capacity is not determined solely by workplace location, but by the conditions under which people work. Factors such as organisational culture, leadership behaviour, and the quality of the physical environment are more important than mere presence. This shifts the focus of those responsible for workplace design from “How do we get people back into the office?” to “What do people experience in the office, and what makes the journey worthwhile?”
Variety, purpose and learning as drivers of innovation
Another key finding of the study is that certain experiential qualities of work are more strongly linked to creativity and innovation than the physical location itself. The following factors were identified as being particularly influential:
- Variety in work, meaning the opportunity to take on different tasks, break routines and engage with new topics
- Enjoyment of the work itself, understood as a positive emotional connection to one’s tasks rather than mere entertainment
- Commitment to organisational success, i.e. the sense of contributing meaningfully to the bigger picture
- Opportunities to learn, for example through training, exploratory projects or knowledge exchange across departments
These factors have a demonstrable impact on creativity and innovation, regardless of whether work takes place in the office or while working remotely. This sends a clear message to organisations: innovation is not primarily a question of location, but of culture and organisation. Workplace design should therefore aim to make variety, purpose and learning visible and tangible in everyday working life.
How innovative teams experience the office differently
Despite these findings, the physical office remains an important component of an organisation’s innovation system, albeit not in the way that discussions around presence often imply. The study shows that highly innovative groups rate their office environments significantly more positively in two respects: as spaces for creative collaboration, and as settings for cross-functional interaction. Where employees perceive the office as a supportive environment for joint ideation, exchange, and spontaneous collaboration, innovation levels are notably higher. Conversely, where office space is primarily seen as an environment for routine desk-based tasks, innovation remains lower, even with high attendance rates. In terms of office planning, the key takeaway is that it is not the space itself that creates value, but how it is experienced and used. The important thing is whether spaces genuinely support collaborative and exploratory work or are mainly used for individual, focused tasks in practice.
What does this mean for office planning?
If the office is viewed as a corporate innovation hub, the requirements regarding space, equipment and usage concepts change fundamentally. Three core functions come into focus: spaces for creative collaboration, areas for cross-functional encounters, and environments that visibly support learning. Teams need spaces where they can think, develop and visualise ideas together. It is less important that such areas are formally included in space plans than that they are accessible and accepted in everyday use. If creative zones are permanently occupied, repurposed as extensions of open-plan offices, or restricted by hierarchical barriers, they become less effective. Equally important are spaces where different perspectives can converge. Central meeting points, open lounges, shared café areas, co-working zones and internal event spaces create opportunities for interaction between teams, departments and hierarchical levels — precisely the interfaces where new ideas often emerge. Office planners must therefore consider the physical location of these interfaces within the layout, and how circulation, visibility and spatial quality can support such encounters. At the same time, office concepts should promote diversity rather than uniformity. Having a variety of spaces for focused work, collaboration, learning and recovery enables a more flexible approach to the working day and helps break routine patterns. This also transforms the office into a place of learning, with learning lounges, small libraries, training spaces and visible knowledge-sharing formats that make continuous development tangible and integrate formal and informal learning. This does not necessarily require a complete redesign of existing office space. Zoning, new furniture, revised occupancy rules and different space allocation can produce noticeable effects. The important thing is to align spatial concepts, usage scenarios and cultural signals, and to have a clear understanding of the intended use of each space.
Presence requires purpose – and leadership
The study places the debate around return-to-office policies and attendance quotas into a broader context. Simply mandating presence is insufficient if it remains unclear how time spent in the office should be utilised. Therefore, for HR and leadership, the question is not only about the ‘right’ level of presence, but also about the quality of time spent together on site. Leaders play a crucial role in ensuring that office time is not consumed by routine tasks, but is instead deliberately reserved for collaboration, innovation, and social connection. Well-designed office environments can support this approach by providing the right spaces and making them easy to use. However, they cannot replace leadership, clear team agreements, or a shared understanding of innovation. Therefore, it is worthwhile for workplace strategists and HR to consider space planning and leadership development together – for example, by combining pilot spaces with team agreements, learning formats and feedback loops.
Conclusion: The office gains importance as a place for innovation
Neither working from home nor working in an office is inherently innovative. What matters is how work is organised and the quality of the environments in which it takes place. In hybrid working models in particular, offices are becoming less important for routine individual tasks and more important for collaboration, learning, and creative development. Organisations that design office spaces strategically and consistently align them with these functions no longer view the office merely as a cost factor, but as a strategic resource for innovation — and thus a genuine competitive advantage. The Fraunhofer study provides office planners, workplace strategists and HR with a clear perspective: the key question is not how much presence is ‘right’, but how spaces and conditions must be designed so that time spent together in the office genuinely enhances innovative capacity.
