Sv 
En Share with
Blog
Why do similar office concepts produce such different outcomes in practice? The most useful answer is that layout alone never carries the whole result. This article explains why activity-based working implementation depends on objectives, resources, employee participation, work analysis and management behaviour long before the workplace can perform well.
The paper treats workplace change as a system, not a layout
The case study by Rolfö is valuable because it does not judge the office only as a finished environment. It examines the design and implementation process that produced the relocation outcome.
That distinction matters because workplace change is rarely only a spatial decision. It is the combined output of objectives, resources, analysis, communication, leadership behaviour and external competence. Once you see the change that way, mixed office results become easier to interpret.
Mixed results are often process results
The paper identifies several process factors linked to perceived performance and environmental satisfaction, including clear objectives, time and financial resources, employee participation, methodological approach, communication, management behaviour and external competence.
That list should change how workplace strategists talk about office performance. If outcomes depend on those factors, then the success or failure of an activity-based office cannot be explained by the concept label alone. It depends on whether the organisation ran a serious implementation process.
For teams that want the broader evidence context, see what the systematic review really says about activity-based working.
Employee participation is not a soft extra
One of the most useful findings in the case study is the role of employee participation and empowerment. Employees who felt able to influence the process reported stronger satisfaction with the outcome.
That should not be treated as a cultural side note. Participation is operational because it affects whether the organisation understands real work patterns, surfaces hidden constraints and builds enough legitimacy for the new model to be used properly.
Work analysis matters more than concept enthusiasm
Too many organisations choose an office model first and ask later whether the work fits it. This paper points in the opposite direction. The stronger the analysis of tasks, activities and context, the better the chance that the future workplace will support real work rather than an aspirational narrative.
That is also why activity-based office productivity depends on workplace conditions, not concept labels is relevant here. Good implementation is not abstract. It should eventually improve measurable workplace conditions such as privacy, communication and usability.
Design, rules and leadership behaviour must move together
The study treats the relocation as both a physical and organisational change. It covers layout and furniture, but also norms, rules, communication and management behaviour.
This is exactly the right implementation lens. An activity-based office changes how availability is interpreted, how autonomy is exercised and how people coordinate work. If those behavioural rules move out of sync with the physical setting, the office may look coherent while work still feels unstable.
The real strategic question is implementation capability
Leaders often ask whether ABW works. A better question is whether the organisation has the implementation capability to make it work well.
Do the objectives make sense? Is work analysis deep enough? Is participation genuine? Are leaders modelling the same rules they expect others to follow? Has the team invested in competence it does not yet have? Those questions are more predictive than any workplace trend language.
For a wider capability perspective, see a workplace strategy framework based on EWCS 2024.
What a stronger implementation framework should include
A stronger workplace change framework should include:
- clear objectives that explain why the change is being made
- serious work analysis before concept selection
- real employee participation rather than symbolic consultation
- visible management discipline during and after move-in
- enough resources to correct problems after launch
- external support where internal capability is still weak
That is a more realistic model of activity-based working implementation than any checklist focused only on layout, etiquette or communications collateral.
Why this matters beyond one relocation case
This study is valuable because it pushes workplace strategy away from design determinism. It reminds teams that implementation architecture is part of the workplace solution.
In practice, this means organisations should assess process capability as seriously as they assess space concepts. Teams that get that right make better decisions before relocation, not only excuses afterwards.
Source: Applied Ergonomics, Relocation to an activity-based flexible office – Design processes and outcomes, published 2018-06-29.
Next step
Build stronger implementation capability for workplace change
If your team needs help turning workplace change into a more disciplined implementation practice, Workplace Strategist offers courses, training and practical frameworks for strategy, work analysis and change support. You can also contact Workplace Strategist to discuss how to strengthen implementation capability before the next office transition.
FAQ
What is the main lesson from this activity-based office case study?
The main lesson is that outcomes depend heavily on implementation quality, not only on the office concept itself.
Why does employee participation matter so much?
Because participation improves understanding of real work needs and makes it more likely that the new environment will be workable and trusted.
What should happen before an organisation chooses an office concept?
It should analyse tasks, activities, constraints and organisational context so that the concept follows the work instead of the other way around.
What does implementation capability mean in workplace strategy?
It means the team's ability to set clear objectives, run work analysis, involve people properly, lead the change consistently and correct problems after move-in.
