In brief

A customer case, with its context: a 1,200-person tech scale-up, using Taxonomy with Dynamics data. Problem: an expansion planned on growth projections, and no certainty it was needed. Outcome in the calculation: the company can stay, with a calculated need of 10,000 m² against an assumed 13,500 m². Financial impact: about $1.2M a year in avoided rent, calculated on an assumed cost per m². A calculated result, not a promise.

Status of the figures

This case describes a modelling exercise with Taxonomy. The space requirement, the effects on productivity and retention and the financial impact are calculated. Which recommendations were carried out and what was measured afterwards is not stated in this case description, so no results measured after the fact are included.

The challenge

A tech scale-up with 1,200 employees, growing to 1,300, believed its office was reaching capacity as meeting rooms felt full and peak days seemed congested. Leadership assumed relocation or expansion was necessary.

To validate this, they used Taxonomy with 700 Dynamics respondents, scaled to the full workforce using the Create Persona and Growth Multiplier features. They recognized that choosing to stay or move is not just about cost, but a decision influencing:

  • Space efficiency
  • Commuting impacts
  • Productivity alignment
  • Retention risk

What we assessed

  • Solo versus group activities. Most work occurred individually or in meetings of one to four people, not in large rooms.
  • Personality and sensory profiles. Big Five traits plus acoustic and visual comfort needs informed the recommended mix of settings.
  • Schedule behaviour. A slight mismatch existed, but leadership did not want to change hybrid schedules, so modelling kept schedules exactly as-is.

Simulation using Taxonomy

Calculated space requirement

  • Current office: 11,500 m²
  • Assumed need: 13,500 m²
  • Calculated need: 10,000 m²

Desk and sharing ratio

  • Recommended ratio: 1:1.4 (0.7 workplace per FTE)
  • Peak occupancy in the model below 72%
  • 150 desks unnecessary, freeing 750 m²

Meeting rooms

  • 80% of meetings have one to four attendees
  • Right-sizing oversized rooms unlocked 405 m²

Circulation and support zones

  • Secondary circulation reduced from 20% to 18%, freeing 345 m²

Cultural alignment

With a push toward a more results-oriented culture, Taxonomy recommended more spontaneous interaction zones, fewer oversized formal rooms, and improved zoning, which the model translates into:

  • a calculated 7% improvement in productivity alignment
  • a calculated 5% improvement in retention score, driven by better cultural and behavioural fit

These insights were generated without occupancy analytics; adding them would refine actual versus reported use and the recommended configuration.

Recommendations

  • Stay in the current office.
  • Reconfigure: add small rooms and focus pods, right-size meeting rooms, reduce circulation, repurpose 350 desks.
  • Keep the current schedule, per leadership preference.

Calculated outcomes

  • On the basis of the calculation, the company can stay.
  • The model score for productivity alignment comes out 7% higher with the recommended layout. This is a model output, not measured productivity.
  • The calculated retention score comes out 5% higher through better cultural alignment. This too is a model output.
  • Commute impact stays unchanged, since location and schedules do not shift.

Financial impact

By staying, the calculation shows no extra 2,000 m² is needed. At $600 per m², that is an avoided cost of $1.2M annually, plus 1,500 m² unlocked internally. This is a worked calculation on an assumed cost per m², not a realised saving.

The calculation leaves out possible productivity and retention gains. As an illustration: a 1% drop in turnover means 13 fewer employees to replace, which corresponds to the scenario figure of $780,000 (implying $60,000 replacement cost per employee).