Open-plan ABW performance depends more on support-system coherence than sector stereotypes

Are some sectors simply unsuitable for activity-based working, or is that the wrong level of analysis? This article explains why open-plan ABW performance depends less on sector stereotypes and more on whether design, behaviour and technology work together as one coherent support system.

The sector debate hides the more useful diagnosis

This paper analyses 2,090 post-occupancy surveys across five sectors and compares satisfaction and perceived productivity in open-plan offices designed to support activity-based working (ABW). The sector differences are real, but they are not the most useful strategic lesson.

The more important point is that the concept cannot be judged meaningfully through stereotype alone. The real question is whether the workplace system is coherent enough to support how work is actually done in that setting.

Interior design quality was the strongest productivity predictor

One of the clearest findings is that interior design was the strongest predictor of perceived productivity across sectors. That should immediately challenge the tendency to treat concept language or desk policy as the decisive variable.

If the sensory and functional quality of the space is weak, the ABW label does not save the outcome. Strategy needs to pay far more attention to the conditions that make the environment feel usable and credible in everyday work.

Privacy and distraction remain recurring weak points

Across sectors, distraction and privacy received the lowest scores. That pattern matters because it keeps reappearing across the wider evidence base.

The study's open-ended comments also pointed to mismatches between spatial and behavioural dimensions of ABW. In practice, that means dissatisfaction becomes predictable when the workplace asks for mobility and switching without offering enough clarity, privacy and behavioural support.

This is exactly why activity-based working evidence shows a trade-off model, not a universal upgrade is relevant. The review article shows the same recurring concentration and privacy fault lines at a broader evidence level.

ABW fails when one of the pillars is weak

The paper concludes that ABW can work across industries when its three pillars are fully implemented: design, behaviour and technology. That is probably the article's most useful contribution.

Too many workplace changes are still implemented as design projects alone. But if behavioural norms are unclear or technology does not support movement between settings, even a visually strong office can underperform.

What teams should test before calling a workplace activity-based

Before applying the ABW label, teams should test:

1. whether privacy and distraction have been treated as central design variables
2. whether employees understand the behavioural logic of the environment
3. whether the digital and spatial systems support movement between settings
4. whether perceived productivity is being measured after move-in rather than assumed in advance

Those questions are much more useful than deciding that one sector is naturally good or bad for the concept.

Why this matters for implementation practice

The broader lesson is that ABW should be treated as an integrated operating system rather than as a floorplan style. That is also why activity-based workspace mechanisms require clearer design logic is the right adjacent article. Both pieces argue that outcomes depend on the underlying system logic rather than on concept rhetoric.

Source: Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Occupants’ satisfaction and perceived productivity in open-plan offices designed to support Activity-Based Working: findings from different industry sectors, published 2021.