An office can satisfy the requirements of the National Construction Code and still leave its occupants distracted, fatigued or struggling to concentrate. That isn’t necessarily a failure of the building regulations. It raises a different question: what do we actually mean when we say a workplace is fit for purpose? Recent research into open-plan offices provides an interesting perspective.

What happens to our brains in an open-plan office?

A recent study published in the journal Buildings examined how different workplace environments affect mental workload. Researchers from the Universitat Politècnica de València and Universitat de Cadiz compared people undertaking typical office activities in an open-plan workspace with the same activities undertaken inside an enclosed work pod.

Twenty-six participants completed auditory, reading and writing tasks while their brain activity was measured using electroencephalography (EEG). The researchers found distinctly different patterns of cortical activation between the two environments. In the open-plan setting, neural activity progressively increased as participants continued working, indicating greater effort was required to maintain performance. Inside the enclosed work pod, activation levels reduced over time, suggesting less cortical effort was required to sustain the same tasks.

Importantly, this was a relatively small study, and the researchers weren’t measuring whether people were more productive in one environment than another. They were measuring mental workload; effectively, how hard the brain appeared to be working to sustain the task. Nevertheless, the findings are interesting for anyone involved in designing workplaces because they provide neurophysiological evidence that the physical configuration of a workplace can influence the mental effort associated with everyday office work.

So, what does the building code require?

This is where the distinction between compliance and workplace quality becomes important. For the purposes of the NCC, an office will generally be classified as a Class 5 building. The Code contains extensive provisions intended to protect the health, safety, accessibility and amenity of the people occupying that building. Occupant numbers have consequences for matters such as sanitary facilities, exits, ventilation and other building systems.

For example, sanitary facilities for Class 5 buildings are calculated according to the number of occupants. Frequently occupied spaces are subject to lighting requirements, while appropriate natural or mechanical ventilation must also be provided. Accessibility requirements introduce another important layer, including accessible paths of travel and accessible sanitary facilities.

These are important requirements. They establish the regulatory baseline necessary for a building to safely and accessibly accommodate the people expected to use it. But NCC compliance is only one part of the regulatory and design framework that ultimately shapes the environment in which people work.

What isn’t measured?

The NCC doesn’t generally prescribe how many quiet rooms an office should have. It doesn’t establish a ratio between employees and focus spaces, nor does it determine how many people should be exposed to nearby conversations, movement and visual distractions while undertaking work requiring sustained concentration. That means two office fitouts could both satisfy the relevant building requirements while providing substantially different experiences for the people who work within them.

One might provide large expanses of undifferentiated open-plan workspace. Another might combine open areas with meeting rooms, enclosed focus spaces, acoustic separation and quieter zones where people can select an environment appropriate to the work they are doing. From a building compliance perspective, both may be capable of achieving the required outcome. From the perspective of the person occupying that building for much of their working week, the distinction could be considerable.

Minimum compliance and better outcomes aren’t the same thing

There is an important point here for designers, building owners and employers. Building codes necessarily establish minimum standards, they aren’t design manuals for creating the optimum workplace.

We already accept this distinction in other areas of building design. Meeting minimum accessibility requirements doesn’t necessarily mean a building represents the best possible example of inclusive design. Achieving minimum required energy performance doesn’t prevent a project team from pursuing a considerably more efficient building. Workplace amenity can be considered in much the same way.

The emerging research suggests we should perhaps think not only about whether there is sufficient physical space for people, but about what those people are being asked to do within that space. A collaborative project team may benefit from areas designed specifically for interaction. Someone reviewing complex documentation, preparing a technical report or concentrating on detailed calculations may need something quite different.

The answer therefore isn’t necessarily a return to corridors lined with individual offices. It may instead be about choice.

There is an accessibility question too

This discussion also intersects with inclusive design. People don’t experience noise, movement, lighting and distraction in the same way. Nor will a single workplace configuration necessarily suit every person or every task. The study itself identified variation between individuals and noted that future research should investigate individual characteristics that may influence sensitivity to environmental conditions.

That makes the provision of different types of workspace potentially important beyond productivity alone. Quiet spaces, acoustic separation, reduced visual distraction and a choice of working environments can contribute to workplaces that accommodate a broader range of people and working styles.

It is an area where the conversation around accessibility is increasingly capable of extending beyond simply whether someone can physically enter and move around a building.

Compliance should be the foundation

None of this diminishes the role of building regulation, quite the opposite. The NCC provides an important foundation: life safety, health, accessibility and minimum amenity requirements that every compliant workplace needs to address. But building compliance is not the only consideration once people begin occupying and working within that space.

Work health and safety introduces another layer. Under Australia’s WHS framework, a person conducting a business or undertaking has a duty to provide and maintain, so far as is reasonably practicable, a working environment that is without risks to health and safety. Importantly, health includes both physical and psychological health. Safe Work Australia also specifically identifies workplace layout, work areas, lighting and ventilation as elements of the workplace environment that need to be considered. Its guidance on managing the work environment goes further, covering matters including workspaces, lighting, ventilation and facilities for workers. Psychosocial hazards can also arise from the design or management of work and the work environment.

That doesn’t mean an open-plan office is inherently unsafe, nor does WHS legislation prescribe a particular number of quiet rooms or enclosed workspaces. It does mean that workplace design cannot necessarily be considered solely through the lens of whether the building satisfies minimum NCC requirements. And that distinction becomes particularly interesting in light of emerging research into cognitive load.

If the physical configuration of a workplace can influence the mental effort required to perform everyday tasks, good workplace design may increasingly require project teams to think beyond how many people a space can accommodate and consider how those people will experience and use it.

There are therefore several different questions at play;

• The NCC asks whether the building meets the required standards for its occupants
• WHS broadens the consideration to the health and safety of people at work
• Good workplace design can go further again, considering concentration, comfort, inclusion and the different environments people may need to perform different types of work

Perhaps the question for the next generation of workplaces isn’t simply how many people can this office accommodate? It is also; what kind of environment are we asking people to work in? For building owners, designers and employers, understanding the difference between those two questions may increasingly separate a compliant office from a genuinely good workplace.

Research referenced: Pérez-Martínez, M., Barranco-Merino, R., Higuera-Trujillo, J.L. and Llinares, C., “Temporal Trajectories in EEG-Based Mental Workload: Effects of Workspace Type”, Buildings, 16(1), 176. DOI: 10.3390/buildings16010176.