Definition and scope
An open-plan office groups several workstations within a room with few full-height separations. It is not a single model: it may include assigned desks, shared workstations, booths, rooms and differentiated areas. It is not necessarily a flexible office, because an open space may still require everybody to work at the same desk every day.
The preventive question is whether conditions allow planned tasks to be performed without avoidable interference. A conversation useful to one team may interrupt somebody reviewing a complex document. Assessing this environment therefore requires observing which activities coincide, for how long and with what alternatives. Modern furniture, visual spaciousness or the absence of private offices cannot establish on their own that a layout works for its occupants or its intended tasks.
Sources: [3]
Collaboration evidence: avoid universal promises
Bernstein and Turban examined two transitions towards more open workspaces and observed reduced face-to-face interaction alongside increased electronic communication. This challenges the assumption that removing partitions automatically increases collaboration. It does not establish that every open office produces the same effect or independently measure the quality of collaborative work.
An organisation should define what collaboration means in its context: resolving a question, coordinating delivery, sharing knowledge or making decisions together. Counting conversations does not answer every need. A refurbishment should test whether it improves those activities without preventing individual work. Research findings help frame questions, but do not justify promising a universal productivity percentage or treating a spatial configuration as a diagnosis of psychosocial risk. A clear purpose makes it possible to judge whether the change was useful.
Sources: [1]
Noise disturbance and hearing exposure are different issues
INSST’s ergonomic approach to noise considers sound characteristics, informational content, task requirements and individual differences. This allows interference with concentration to be assessed even when hearing damage is not the main concern. The intelligibility of nearby conversations may be relevant to sustained attention tasks.
In practice, stating that an office is «below the noise limit» is not sufficient to close a complaint. The organisation should clarify which criterion was applied and which problem is being investigated. An average value does not explain every interruption or busy period. Communication and attention needs require criteria suited to the circumstances, established by competent personnel, rather than one invented threshold for all offices. Results should describe their scope so that a check of one issue is not mistaken for an assessment of every acoustic concern.
Sources: [2]
Start with an activity map
DGUV guidance for shared offices places activity analysis at the beginning of acoustic planning and highlights the need to separate incompatible tasks. Space decisions should start with what happens in the room, rather than only the number of desks that can fit inside it.
As a working tool, an activity map can show periods of calls, brief meetings, public contact, document review and team coordination. Add frequent walking routes and maximum occupancy periods. Then identify where incompatible needs overlap. The map need not identify who talks most or record conversation content. Its purpose is to show which activity combinations the design must accommodate and which alternatives are missing during normal working hours. This also helps explain why a layout that suits one department may be inappropriate for another.
Sources: [3]
Acoustics: commission a verifiable outcome
ISO 22955:2021 provides guidance on open-office acoustic quality according to activities and project participants. Its official record confirms the version in 2026. Consulting the public abstract does not establish full compliance with the standard or certify a building.
When commissioning work, describe the expected use, occupancy and problem to be corrected, ask the specialist for acceptance criteria and agree how they will be verified. Adding decorative panels without assessment may not resolve the spread of conversations. A technical proposal should address the whole space and compatibility with ventilation, lighting, accessibility and evacuation. Receipt of materials must not be confused with verification of an occupied workplace. The contract should leave a clear route for correcting a solution that does not perform as agreed under representative conditions.
Sources: [4]
Organising conversation and concentration
An organisational proposal can reserve areas for calls and collaboration, maintain others for focused tasks and specify how urgent help is requested. Rules must be understandable and workable: demanding silence beside workstations whose purpose is to handle calls creates a conflict that reminders about courtesy cannot resolve.
Actual availability matters as much as the existence of a room on a plan. If every booth is booked for hours or unsuitable for a particular person, it is not an effective alternative. Review booking duration, occupancy and permitted activities without turning access into a privilege based on seniority. Agreements should allow necessary coordination while ensuring that the search for concentration does not become isolation or an obligation to finish work outside normal hours. The solution needs to support both groups of workers.
Sources: [3]
Individual differences and participation
People may need different conditions for the same task. A preventive approach should ask what difficulty they encounter and what adjustment they need before labelling them «unsociable» or «too sensitive». Participation may include walkthroughs, furniture trials and reviews of how spaces are used after a move.
An individual request should not require disclosure of medical information to the team. Relevant adjustment channels can handle it, sharing only what is necessary to implement the measure. Available solutions should consider accessibility, communication and personal aids. Providing headphones to everyone does not automatically resolve design problems, and their compatibility with alarms, interaction and tasks must be considered. The aim is effective work, rather than imposing a single way of tolerating the environment or treating an environmental complaint as a personal failing.
Privacy and hybrid work
An open office may combine video calls, personal data, clients and documents that require discretion. Space assessment should identify which conversations or tasks need privacy and provide a genuinely available place. Speaking quietly is not always sufficient, and handling sensitive information should not depend on finding a free room by chance.
Hybrid arrangements should be assessed on their busiest attendance days, rather than only through a weekly average. A layout that appears suitable with few desks occupied may fail when the whole team attends. Attendance coordination should consider task needs, accessibility and resources, avoiding automatic transfer to employees’ homes of work that is difficult to perform in the office. Remote alternatives also require appropriate conditions and clear organisational agreements, including a workable response for those who cannot use them.
A hypothetical improvement example
A company moves customer-facing sales and financial analysis into one open floor. The second team reports frequent interruptions. The initial response is to distribute headphones, but a subsequent review identifies calls immediately beside review desks and a single room being used for temporary storage.
The company clears the room, rearranges adjacencies, commissions an acoustic assessment and trials focused work periods compatible with customer service. During the pilot it gathers task-specific difficulties, room availability and errors requiring rework, without recording conversations. Some measures work and others are adjusted. The example does not establish that every office requires individual rooms: it shows how a specific incompatibility can be investigated and corrected through verifiable criteria, assigned responsibilities and participation by affected teams. Remaining problems receive their own follow-up actions.
Sources: [3]
Indicators without intrusive surveillance
Monitoring can include issues by area, unmet requests for quiet space, room availability, self-reported interruptions and completion of agreed measures. It is also useful to record whether a problem clusters around particular times or tasks. Data should support decisions about space and organisation, rather than rank individuals by how much they talk or become distracted.
Assessment does not require listening to conversations or installing cameras to infer attention. Define purpose, aggregation and access before collecting data. Improved satisfaction alone does not establish higher productivity, and fewer messages do not demonstrate better collaboration. Comparing similar tasks and occupancy helps interpret change; reports should explain the pilot’s limitations and questions that remain open. Indicators are most useful when they help select a practical correction and then check whether it worked.
Integration and post-occupancy review
Follow-up can connect with mental workload, noise, cognitive ergonomics and psychosocial assessment. An issue record should retain the affected task, proposed measure, responsible person and review date. Distinguish a completed action, such as installing a partition, from a verified outcome, such as being able to hold a private conversation under the planned conditions.
Review the assessment when teams, density, schedules or activities change, including the introduction of extensive video calls or unassigned desks. Update plans and usage rules to reflect actual conditions. This continuity prevents an initially suitable solution from losing its usefulness unnoticed. It also turns occupants’ experience into evidence for future projects, giving facilities, prevention and operational managers a shared basis for making changes without relying solely on how the office looks.
Frequently asked questions
Do open offices always reduce concentration?
A universal effect cannot be assumed. Tasks, interference, acoustics, occupancy and available alternatives all matter.
Does meeting a noise limit eliminate all disturbance?
Not necessarily. Hearing protection criteria and criteria for comfort or interference with tasks address different problems.
Can headphones replace an environmental improvement?
No. They may suit some tasks, but do not replace assessment or independently resolve privacy, accessibility or lack of suitable space.
What should be checked after refurbishment?
Performance under real occupancy: compatible activities, available alternatives, acoustic conditions and problems still reported by the people using the space.
