Back to the office – but what is the office for?
As Sweden returns to work after the summer holiday period, many employees are also returning to the office. At the same time, several large companies, both in Sweden and internationally, are tightening their requirements for in-person attendance. As more working days are spent in the office, this raises a fundamental question: How well does the office environment support the work that is meant to take place there?
The development is not clear-cut. Hybrid working remains common, and conditions vary between industries, roles and organisations. At the same time, several large employers have increased their office attendance requirements. The reasons given often include collaboration, creativity, organisational culture and knowledge exchange.
However, not all office environments support these capabilities in the same way. Light, sound, materials, spatial design, access to privacy and the volume of sensory input can affect concentration, recovery and social interaction.
“Design is not only about what places look like – it affects how we think, feel and function in everyday life. As AI takes over more routine tasks, human work may increasingly centre on judgement, concentration and creative problem-solving. We therefore need a better understanding of whether the office environment actually supports these capabilities or creates unnecessary cognitive load,” says Cleo Valentine, Senior Researcher and Innovation Leader at RISE.
From assumptions to better decision-making
Neuroarchitecture and neurodesign are interdisciplinary fields that bring together knowledge from neuroscience, psychology, architecture, design and technology. Neuroarchitecture studies the interaction between people and the built environment on a broader scale, while neurodesign examines, among other things, how light, sound, colour, materials, furnishings and other spatial qualities influence how an environment is experienced and used.
New technologies and analytical methods make it possible to study the significance of the environment in more ways than before. By combining users’ experiences with behavioural data and psychological and physiological measurements, researchers can investigate factors such as stress, recovery, attention and cognitive load.
This does not mean that measurements can produce a perfect office, or that all the answers are already available. However, the results can complement the experience of architects, designers and organisations, providing a stronger basis for prioritising different measures.
“We may feel better with certain materials, colour schemes, lighting or patterns, and balancing all these impressions can support more effective recovery,” says Isabelle Sjövall, Brain Researcher Director, NeuroArchitecture and NeuroDesign at RISE.
As AI takes over more routine tasks, human work may come to focus more on judgment, concentration, and creative problem-solving. We therefore need to better understand whether the office environment actually supports these abilities or creates unnecessary cognitive strain.
Measuring, evaluating and following up
RISE works to translate research into methods that can be applied to the development of real-world environments. This may involve analysing an existing workplace, comparing different design options or evaluating an environment after a change has been made. RISE is also developing the research-based NeuroDesign & NeuroArchitecture Index, NDIX, which combines different types of data to analyse and compare how built environments affect people.
In this way, neuroarchitecture and neurodesign can contribute evidence for decision-making, both before a renovation and during the continuous development of a workplace. The purpose is not to replace other requirements relating to function, cost, aesthetics and sustainability, but to add knowledge about how the environment works for the people who use it.
Greater demands on human work?
The question may become even more relevant as AI changes working life. If technology takes over more routine tasks, a greater proportion of human work may come to involve judgement, problem-solving, creativity and the synthesis of complex information. These are tasks that can place high demands on concentration and mental recovery.
This does not mean that there is one office that suits everyone, or that working in an office is always better or worse than working remotely. But as organisations establish new principles for where work should take place, the discussion may need to broaden. Beyond the number of days employees are expected to be present, another question arises: Which capabilities should the office support – and what evidence do we have to determine whether the environment actually does so?
Isabelle Sjövall
