48 Open Plan Office Statistics

by

These open plan office figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Open Plan Office Statistics

The main findings are:

  • The experiment included 288 participants organized into 22 teams (2019-2020 experiment; Booking.com, international workforce).
  • In the randomized experiment, zoned open-plan participants reported 17% higher productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants).
  • The field studies found face-to-face interaction fell by about 70% after conversion to open offices (before versus after office redesign; Two corporate field studies).
  • Lower workstation density was associated with lower speech level at 4 meters (field measurements in 16 offices; China).
  • In the Norwegian study, 38.8% of all workers had medically certified sickness absence during the following 12 months (12-month follow-up; Norway).
  • Team-office engagement was 7% higher than open-plan engagement in the experiment (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants).
  • Teams ranged from 4 to 20 members in the office-design experiment (2019-2020 experiment; Booking.com).
  • Team-office participants reported 10% higher productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants).
  • Electronic interaction increased by roughly 20% to 50% after the open-office redesigns (before versus after redesign; Two corporate field studies).
  • Higher storey height was associated with lower speech level at 4 meters (field measurements in 16 offices; China).
  • The open-plan group had a 1.12 risk ratio for at least one medically certified absence versus cellular offices (12-month follow-up; Norway).
  • Zoned open-plan enjoyment was 11% higher than open-plan enjoyment (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants).
  • Participants were 22 to 59 years old, with a mean age of 32 (2019-2020 experiment; Booking.com participants).
  • Activity-based participants reported 14% lower productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants).
  • The second field study followed 100 employees on one floor, about 45% of that floor’s employees (8 weeks before and 8 weeks after redesign; Fortune 500 multinational headquarters).

Contents

Open plan office statistics: adoption, layouts and study populations

Teams volunteered; not a representative workforce sample.

Team-size range describes participating teams only.

Sample age profile is not population-representative.

Nationality count does not establish representative global coverage.

Gender measure was self-identified and sample-specific.

Study does not estimate national prevalence.

Participating organizations were recruited; 52% of invitees did not answer the questionnaire.

Office categories are self-reported and describe this sample, not all Norwegian offices.

Open plan office productivity and focused-work statistics

  • In the randomized experiment, zoned open-plan participants reported 17% higher productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Team-office participants reported 10% higher productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Activity-based participants reported 14% lower productivity than in the open-plan condition (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • The office-design effect on reported productivity was statistically significant at F=31.570, p<0.001 (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Participants in their first experimental wave reported 9.4% higher productivity regardless of office design (first wave of experiment; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Each additional day spent in the experimental concept was associated with 3.5% higher reported productivity (during experiment; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Zoned open-plan participants reported 15% higher flow than open-plan participants (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Team-office participants reported 12% higher flow than open-plan participants (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Office design had no significant effect on the number of Git commits, with chi-square=0.372 and df=259 (experiment period; Booking.com code-development participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • The experiment found no significant office-design effect on self-reported energy; F=1.439, p=0.231 (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)

Relative estimate within one company; productivity was self-reported.

Relative estimate within one company; not an objective output measure.

Self-reported productivity and short exposure periods limit generalization.

Statistical significance does not quantify objective business output.

The paper identifies a wave/carryover effect; this is not a design benefit.

Association within the experiment; not causal evidence about office tenure.

Flow was a survey construct, not a direct time-on-task measure.

Survey-based outcome in one employer.

Commits are a narrow output proxy and only apply to participants using Git.

Self-reported energy and non-significance do not prove equivalence.

  • The field studies found face-to-face interaction fell by about 70% after conversion to open offices (before versus after office redesign; Two corporate field studies). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • Electronic interaction increased by roughly 20% to 50% after the open-office redesigns (before versus after redesign; Two corporate field studies). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • The second field study followed 100 employees on one floor, about 45% of that floor’s employees (8 weeks before and 8 weeks after redesign; Fortune 500 multinational headquarters). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • The second study recorded 63,363 minutes of face-to-face interaction (8 weeks before and 8 weeks after redesign; 100 employees in Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • The second study recorded 25,553 emails among its participants (8 weeks before and 8 weeks after redesign; 100 employees in Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • The Study 2 interaction dataset contained 1,830 employee dyads with recorded interaction (before and after redesign; 100 employees in Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • Before redesign, desks were in cubicles roughly 2 meters apart and directly adjacent (pre-redesign phase; Fortune 500 headquarters Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • After redesign, seats remained roughly 2 meters apart but were grouped at unwalled tables of 6 to 8 (post-redesign phase; Fortune 500 headquarters Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)
  • The Study 2 pre- and post-redesign observation windows each lasted 8 weeks (three months before and two months after redesign; Fortune 500 headquarters Study 2). (The impact of the ‘open’…)

Quasi-field studies at two companies; authors describe the magnitude as context-specific.

Electronic interaction was measured through digital communication logs and is not equivalent to collaboration quality.

One floor and one employer; participation share is not a population estimate.

Only interactions captured by sociometric badges were analyzed.

Email is one electronic channel and does not measure message quality.

Dyads with no recorded interaction were not part of this dataset count.

Distance is the study’s desk arrangement, not a universal cubicle standard.

Specific redesign configuration; not all open-plan offices use this table size.

Short observation windows may miss seasonal or long-run behavior changes.

Open plan office noise, privacy and environmental statistics

The abstract does not provide the numerical decibel difference.

Direction is reported without a pooled numeric effect size.

Open plan office health, absence and employee experience statistics

  • In the Norwegian study, 38.8% of all workers had medically certified sickness absence during the following 12 months (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • The open-plan group had a 1.12 risk ratio for at least one medically certified absence versus cellular offices (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • The shared-office group had a 1.18 risk ratio for at least one medically certified absence versus cellular offices (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • The observed open-plan absence risk estimate had a 95% confidence interval of 1.02 to 1.22 (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • Office design was not related to the number of medically certified absence days; the open-plan incidence-rate ratio was 1.01 (95% CI 0.85-1.20) (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • The overall mean absence was 21.65 days, while the median and mode were both 0 days and the range was 0-365 days (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • Absence rates by office type were 34% for cellular, 40% for shared and 39% for open-plan offices (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • Mean absence days by office type were 19.77 for cellular, 25.17 for shared and 22.37 for open-plan offices (12-month follow-up; Norway). (The impact of office design…)
  • The Norwegian sample had 57% women and an age range of 19 to 70 years, with mean age 44 (baseline survey; Norway; 6,328 office workers). (The impact of office design…)
  • In the design experiment, zoned open-plan satisfaction was 12% higher and team-office satisfaction 8% higher than open-plan satisfaction (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)

Registry outcome follows a survey and does not establish that office design caused absence.

95% CI 1.02-1.22; observational association with survey nonresponse.

95% CI 1.10-1.27; shared office is not identical to open-plan.

Confidence interval reflects sampling/model uncertainty, not a causal range.

The count outcome differs from the risk of having any absence.

The authors warn the mean may be inflated by some long-term absences.

Unadjusted descriptive rates; categories are observational.

Unadjusted means; skewed by long absences and not equivalent to adjusted effects.

Describes the study sample, not all office workers.

Self-reported satisfaction and study-specific layouts.

Open plan office design alternatives and measured outcomes

  • Team-office engagement was 7% higher than open-plan engagement in the experiment (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Zoned open-plan enjoyment was 11% higher than open-plan enjoyment (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Activity-based-office enjoyment was 9% lower than open-plan enjoyment (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Open-plan recorded sound peaks outside healthy ranges 20% more often than team office (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com experiment). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Open-plan recorded sound peaks outside healthy ranges 29% more often than zoned open-plan (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com experiment). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Open-plan recorded sound peaks outside healthy ranges 27% more often than activity-based office (two-week condition exposures; Booking.com experiment). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Activity-based office hourly occupancy was 5% higher than open-plan occupancy (sensor observations during experiment; Booking.com experiment). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Moving out of the open-plan design was associated with a 4% increase in hourly occupancy (across experimental waves; Booking.com experiment). (The work environment pilot: An…)
  • Participants reported 3% higher satisfaction for each additional day spent in the experimental concept (during experiment; Booking.com participants). (The work environment pilot: An…)

Self-reported engagement; other alternatives were not significantly different from open-plan on this outcome.

Self-reported enjoyment within one employer.

Self-reported enjoyment; activity-based design is not synonymous with open-plan.

Study-specific sound threshold and sensor setup.

Occupancy is sensor-measured presence, not productivity or desk utilization over a full workday.

Wave/previous-design association; not an isolated causal effect.

Time-in-concept association and possible adaptation/carryover.

Table of contents