AOR News

The End of Administrative Silos: Why the Future Belongs to Work Infrastructure Companies

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 18:46:47 GMT

How the collapse of the physical workplace is forcing the most fundamental reorganization of enterprise functions since the rise of the corporation

WORK CODEX : A Complete Ontology of Work

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 17:15:33 GMT

The First Comprehensive Definition of What Work Is

1. The Claim

Work has never been defined.

Throughout human history, philosophers, economists, management theorists, and labor organizations have described aspects of work, measured outputs of work, and debated the value of work. None have offered a complete definition of what work is.

This document makes an ontological claim: Work is observable interaction across four dimensions.

These four dimensions are:
Activities — What work is being done
Places — Where work is happening
Time — When work is occurring
Technology — How work is enabled

This is the APTT Framework. Any instance of work—in any era, any industry, any context—can be fully characterized by specifying its position across these four dimensions. No additional dimensions are required. Remove any dimension and the description becomes incomplete.

This is not a model. It is not a framework for analysis. It is a definition—a statement about what work fundamentally is.

2. Prior Approaches

The claim that work has never been defined requires examination of what has been attempted. Many theorists have described aspects of work. None have offered a complete ontology.

2.1 Philosophical Approaches

Hannah Arendt (1958) distinguished between labor, work, and action—labor as biological necessity, work as fabrication that creates durable objects, action as political engagement. This trichotomy illuminates the human condition but offers abstract categories, not observable dimensions. It tells us why humans work, not what work is.

Karl Marx analyzed work as the transformation of nature through human effort, emphasizing its social relations and alienation under capitalism. His contribution was economic and political critique, not ontological definition.

Aristotle distinguished energeia (activity as its own end) from kinesis (motion toward an external end), classifying work as kinesis. This framing addresses the teleology of action but not its constituent dimensions.

2.2 Management Theory

Frederick Taylor (1911) pioneered scientific management, reducing work to measurable motions and outputs. His framework optimized one dimension—productivity—while ignoring place, time flexibility, and technological enablement as independent variables.

Peter Drucker (1959) defined knowledge work as applying knowledge rather than manual skill. This distinguished a category of work but did not define work itself. Where does knowledge work happen? When? How is it enabled? Drucker's definition is partial.

Henry Mintzberg cataloged managerial roles (interpersonal, informational, decisional) and organizational configurations. These are typologies of management, not ontologies of work.

2.3 Empirical Frameworks

O*NET (Occupational Information Network) provides the most comprehensive catalog of job tasks, skills, and requirements in existence. Yet O*NET describes jobs, not work. It operates at the role level, not the instance level. It is descriptive taxonomy, not ontological definition.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Time-Use Surveys track hours spent in "work" as a single undifferentiated category. This treats work as a block of time rather than a phenomenon with internal structure.

Activity-Based Working (ABW) frameworks categorize space needs by activity type— focus work, collaboration, socialization. ABW is a workplace design methodology, not a definition of work. It addresses one dimension (activities in relation to place) while assuming the others.

2.4 Contemporary Workplace Frameworks

Lynda Gratton's hybrid work framework (2021) maps work across two axes: place (constrained to unconstrained) and time (synchronous to asynchronous). This captures two dimensions while omitting activities and technology. It is partial by design—a diagnostic for hybrid policy, not a complete ontology.

Gensler's Workplace Survey identifies work modes: focus, collaboration, learning, socializing. These are activity categories—a subset of one dimension. The framework informs space design but does not define work.

IDC's Future of Work Framework addresses workspace, workforce, and work culture. These are organizational concerns, not ontological dimensions. The framework guides digital transformation strategy, not definition.

2.5 The Common Gap

Each prior approach contributes insight. None achieves completeness. The pattern is consistent: theorists describe aspects of work—its outputs, its meaning, its social relations, its spatial requirements, its temporal patterns—without synthesizing these into a unified definition of what work fundamentally is.

The APTT Framework addresses this gap by identifying the four dimensions that, together, completely characterize any instance of work. It is not a replacement for prior frameworks but a foundation upon which they can be understood as partial views.

3. The Four Dimensions

Each dimension answers an eternal question about work. The questions do not change. The answers evolve.

3.1 Activities — What Work Is Being Done

The Activities dimension captures the typology of work itself—not specific tasks, but categories of activity distinguished by interaction pattern, formality level, and participant scope.

The eternal question: What is being done?

This question has been asked since humans first coordinated effort. A cave painter asks it. A factory foreman asks it. A knowledge worker asks it. An AI-augmented professional will ask it.

3.2 Places — Where Work Is Happening

The Places dimension captures the physical and virtual locations where work occurs. This extends beyond any binary (office/home, factory/field) to recognize the full spectrum of work environments.

The eternal question: Where is this happening?

The shepherd asks it of the flock. The merchant asks it of the warehouse. The executive asks it of the distributed team.

3.3 Time — When Work Is Occurring

The Time dimension captures the temporal characteristics of work—not just clock time, but synchronicity, duration, rhythm, and temporal distribution across participants.

The eternal question: When is this happening?

The harvest must be timed to the season. The assembly line runs on shifts. The global team coordinates across time zones.

3.4 Technology — How Work Is Enabled

The Technology dimension captures the means by which work is made possible— communication, collaboration, production, access, and protection.

The eternal question: How is this enabled?

The scribe enables work through stylus and papyrus. The typist enables work through keyboard and carbon paper. The analyst enables work through software and cloud infrastructure.

4. The Proof of Completeness

An ontological claim requires proof. The APTT Framework makes two testable assertions:

Completeness: Any instance of work can be fully characterized using these four dimensions. No fifth dimension is required.
Irreducibility: Remove any dimension and the characterization becomes incomplete.

The proof lies in historical universality. If APTT holds across all eras of human work—and if the only thing that changes is the modes within each dimension—then the framework is complete and correct.

4.1 Historical Universality

The following table demonstrates that APTT holds across all major eras of human work. The dimensions remain constant. The modes evolve.

In every era, work is describable by specifying what is being done, where it is happening, when it occurs, and how it is enabled. No era requires a fifth question. No era can be described without all four.

5. The Permanence Assertion

The APTT Framework makes a claim about the future: These four dimensions will remain valid regardless of technological change.

Quantum computing will change how work is enabled. It will not change the fact that work requires enablement.

Neural interfaces may change where work happens. They will not eliminate the dimension of place.

Artificial general intelligence may change what activities humans perform. It will not eliminate the question of what is being done.

The modes within each dimension will continue to evolve—as they always have. The dimensions themselves are permanent features of work as a human phenomenon.

This document asserts that the APTT Framework will remain valid in 2065, in 2125, and beyond—not because the modes will remain static, but because the questions are eternal.

6. What This Is Not

The APTT Framework is an ontology—a statement about what work is. It is not:

A methodology — How to observe, measure, or improve work is a separate question.
A value judgment — The framework does not assert what work should be, only what it is.
A management tool — Applications built on this ontology may serve management purposes; the ontology itself is descriptive.
A taxonomy of jobs — APTT describes work at the instance level, not the role level.

The value of a correct ontology is that it enables correct observation, correct measurement, and correct intervention. Without a definition of work, all workplace strategy is guesswork.

Appendix: 2025 Taxonomy

The following taxonomy represents the current modes within each dimension as of December 2025. This appendix is time-bound and expected to evolve. The dimensions are not.

A.1 Activities

A.2 Places

A. 3 Time

A.4 Technology

7. Conclusion

Work is observable interaction across four dimensions: Activities, Places, Time, and Technology.

This definition holds across all eras of human history. It will hold across all eras to come. The modes evolve. The dimensions are permanent.

For the first time, work has a complete definition.

Last updated January 6, 2026

The Missing Definition: Why We've Never Actually Defined Work

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:22:33 GMT

A Position Paper on Work Codex and the Four-Dimensional Ontology of Work

The Problem No One Named

For over a century, management theorists, economists, philosophers, and organizational scientists have studied work. They've measured it, optimized it, redesigned it, and debated its meaning. What none of them did was define it.

This isn't a rhetorical claim. It's a structural observation about the intellectual history of work itself.

Frederick Taylor studied tasks. Peter Drucker studied knowledge workers. Hannah Arendt distinguished labor from work from action. The International Labour Organization defined work so broadly — "any activity performed to produce goods or services" — that the definition operationalizes nothing. Activity-Based Working, the dominant workplace design philosophy of the past decade, defines work as activities requiring different spatial settings.

Each framework captured something real. None captured work itself.

The result is a fractured landscape where HR measures engagement through surveys, Real Estate measures utilization through sensors, IT measures technology adoption through licenses, and Operations measures time through schedules. Four functions. Four measurement systems. Four partial views. Zero synthesis.

This paper argues that Work Codex represents the first complete ontology of work — not merely a new measurement approach, but a foundational definition that makes comprehensive measurement possible for the first time.

A Brief Taxonomy of Incomplete Definitions

Taylor (1911): Work as Tasks

Scientific Management defined work as discrete, time-measurable tasks that could be decomposed into atomic units, observed, optimized, and standardized. Taylor's contribution was methodological rigor applied to physical labor. His limitation was treating work as something done to workers rather than by them, and capturing only the task dimension while ignoring context, collaboration, and cognition.

Marx (1844): Work as Species-Being

Marx defined work as the essential expression of human nature — the means by which we transform nature and realize ourselves. Under capitalism, this becomes "alienated labor," estranged from product, process, fellow humans, and self. Marx's contribution was recognizing work's existential significance. His limitation was philosophical abstraction — he described the relationship between worker and production, not work itself as an observable phenomenon.

Arendt (1958): Labor, Work, and Action

Hannah Arendt distinguished three categories of human activity: labor (biological necessity, cyclical, consumed), work (creating durable objects that build a shared world), and action (speech and interaction in the public realm). Her contribution was categorical precision. Her limitation was taxonomy without integration — she distinguished types of activity but didn't describe how they interact or could be measured in practice.

Drucker (1959): Work as Knowledge Application

Drucker defined knowledge work as "thinking for a living" — applying theoretical and analytical knowledge to produce goods and services. The knowledge worker manages themselves, innovates continuously, and represents an asset rather than a cost. His contribution was recognizing the cognitive shift in modern economies. His limitation was single-dimensional focus — he described who does work and how (via knowledge), but not where work happens or the contextual factors enabling it.

ILO (2013): Work as Activity

The International Labour Organization formally defined work as "any activity performed by persons of any sex and age to produce goods or to provide services for use by others or for own use." This is the broadest possible definition. It captures everything and operationalizes nothing. It cannot distinguish contexts, modes, or enabling conditions.

Activity-Based Working (1980s–Present): Work as Spatial Requirement

Robert Luchetti and later Veldhoen + Company defined work through the lens of activities requiring different environmental settings — focus work, collaboration, creative thinking, team coordination, and discussion. Space should match activity. This framework dominates contemporary workplace design. Its contribution is recognizing that different work modes require different physical contexts. Its limitation is

Place-centricity — it assumes work is defined by spatial requirements while ignoring temporal patterns, technology integration, and cross-functional synthesis.

The Pattern of Partiality

What emerges from this history is not intellectual failure but disciplinary constraint. Each thinker defined work from their vantage point:

The organizational functions that inherited these frameworks replicated their partiality:

Human Resources adopted engagement and activity frameworks—surveys, pulse checks, performance reviews
Corporate Real Estate adopted spatial frameworks—utilization studies, occupancy sensors, space planning
Information Technology adopted technology frameworks—adoption metrics, license utilization, digital workplace tools
Operations adopted temporal frameworks—scheduling, capacity planning, workforce management

Each function optimized its dimension. None could see the others. The enterprise had no unified view of work itself.

Work Codex: The Four-Dimensional Ontology

Work Codex proposes that work is not a task, not a knowledge process, not a spatial activity, and not a temporal allocation. Work is the interaction across four dimensions:

Places — Where work happens: office, home, client site, third space, in transit
Activities — What work involves: collaboration, focus, communication, creation, coordination
Time — When and how long work occurs: synchronous, asynchronous, scheduled, emergent, sustained, fragmented
Technology — What tools mediate work: communication platforms, productivity software, enterprise systems, physical equipment

This is not a measurement framework imposed on work. It is a definition of what work is. Work exists at the intersection of these four dimensions. A meeting is not merely an Activity—it is an Activity occurring in a Place, at a Time, mediated by Technology. Change any dimension and you change the work itself.

The PATT framework (Places, Activities, Time, Technology) is therefore not an analytical overlay but an ontological claim: work that cannot be located across all four dimensions is incompletely described.

Why This Matters: The Cross-Dimensional Leak

The practical consequence of partial definitions is partial visibility. And partial visibility produces systematic leakage.

Consider the widely-documented costs of workforce dysfunction:

Turnover: Average replacement cost of $48,000+ per knowledge worker (SHRM, Bureau of Labor Statistics: this we believe is significantly under-represented)
Underutilized space: 30-50% of commercial real estate sits empty on any given day (CBRE, JLL industry benchmarks)
Collaboration failure: Teams lose 20%+ productivity to coordination friction (McKinsey, Microsoft Work Trend Index)
Technology friction: Workers lose 3+ hours weekly to tool-switching and system friction (Asana, RescueTime studies)

These are not four separate problems. They are four symptoms of one problem: work is breaking down at the intersections of dimensions that no single-dimension tool can see.

A conference room showing 40% utilization (Place data) might host the highest-collaboration teams in the organization (Activity data) during their most productive hours (Time data) while failing because of hybrid meeting technology mismatch (Technology data). Single-dimension analysis recommends eliminating the room. Four-dimensional analysis reveals the room is critical infrastructure being undermined by a Technology gap.

The leak isn't in any single dimension. It's in the seams between them. And it compounds to approximately $72,000 per employee annually across the average knowledge workforce—a figure derived from synthesis of Bureau of Labor Statistics turnover data, Gallup engagement studies, SHRM replacement cost research, and commercial real estate utilization benchmarks. This leak was always there. We simply lacked the language (and rigorous overlay) to be able to clearly see it and take appropriate actions.

From Measurement to Definition

The distinction between Work Codex and prior frameworks is not methodological but ontological.

Activity-Based Working asks: "What spaces do different activities require?"

Work Codex asks: "What is work, such that it can be comprehensively observed and optimized?"

The answer—interaction across Places, Activities, Time, and Technology—enables measurement approaches that were previously impossible. Not because the data didn't exist, but because no framework existed to capture it, organize and then synthesize response.

Organizations already capture Place data (badge swipes, sensors, room bookings), Activity data (calendar patterns, collaboration tools, project management systems), Time data (schedules, meeting duration, work hours), and Technology data (application usage, system logs, tool adoption). What they lack is a unifying ontology that makes these four data streams legible as a single phenomenon: work.

Work Codex provides that ontology. The PATT framework is the grammar. Cross-dimensional pattern recognition is the syntax. Behavioral intelligence—understanding not just what happened but why, and what intervention would improve outcomes—is the semantics.

Implications for Practice

If work is four-dimensional interaction, several practical implications follow:

1. Single-dimension optimization is structurally limited. Utilization studies cannot solve engagement problems. Engagement surveys cannot solve space problems. Technology rollouts cannot solve collaboration problems. Each intervention optimizes one dimension while potentially degrading others.

2. The leak lives in the intersections. The largest performance gaps exist where dimensions meet: Place- Activity mismatches (wrong space for the work), Activity-Time conflicts (collaboration scheduled during focus hours), Time-Technology friction (synchronous tools applied to asynchronous work), and so on. Interventions must target intersections, not dimensions.

3. Visibility must precede strategy. Organizations cannot optimize what they cannot see. Before workplace strategy, before real estate decisions, before technology investments, organizations need four-dimensional visibility into how work actually happens. Codex provides the framework; implementation provides the data; pattern recognition provides the insight.

4. The container is no longer the operating system. Pre-2020, the physical workplace provided ambient visibility. Managers observed collaboration, identified problems, and sensed the culture by walking the floor. The building was a passive sensing system. That system broke. Remote and hybrid work eliminated ambient visibility without replacing it. Work Codex is the replacement—a deliberate visibility system for a distributed work environment.

Conclusion: Claiming the Definition

Every framework that becomes standard started as one person seeing something others missed. Porter's

Five Forces was "a Michael Porter thing" before it was taught in every business school. Jobs-to-be-Done

was "a Clayton Christensen thing" before it became innovation methodology. The question is never

whether a framework is established—it's whether the logic holds.

Work Codex holds that:

Work is four-dimensional interaction across Places, Activities, Time, and Technology
Prior definitions captured single dimensions, producing partial visibility
Partial visibility enables systematic leakage at dimensional intersections
That leakage compounds to significant per-employee cost
Four-dimensional visibility enables diagnosis and intervention impossible under prior frameworks

This is not a product proposal or a technology pitch. It is a definitional claim about the nature of work itself—the first complete ontology in a field that has studied work for over a century without defining it.

The $72,000 leak was always there. We simply needed the language to see it.

Work Codex is that language.

The Missing Framework: Why Current Workplace Solutions Fall Short of Understanding Work Evolution

Thu, 29 May 2025 19:03:54 GMT

As organizations navigate post-pandemic workplace transformation, billions of dollars are being invested in workplace technology solutions. Yet most enterprises report difficulty translating data into actionable insights about how work is actually evolving. Current solutions address symptoms rather than causes, focusing on operational metrics rather than developing systematic understanding of workplace change. We propose that a fundamental shift in approach is needed—from measurement to learning.

The Point Solution Problem

Today's workplace technology landscape is dominated by specialized solutions: space utilization sensors, desk booking platforms, employee experience surveys, and access management systems. Each provides valuable operational data within their domain, but organizations struggle to synthesize insights across these disparate data streams.

Our analysis of leading workplace technology vendors reveals a consistent pattern: solutions optimized for operational efficiency rather than strategic understanding. While these tools answer questions like "How many people used Conference Room A?" or "What's our average desk utilization?", they provide limited insight into deeper questions about how work itself is changing.

More fundamentally, these solutions reflect a fragmented approach to workplace design—one that mirrors the organizational silos that create them. Technology teams optimize for technical metrics, facilities teams focus on space efficiency, HR teams measure employee satisfaction, and operations teams track utilization. This functional specialization, while individually logical, fails to address the inherently cross-functional nature of effective workplace ecosystems.

The Need for Intelligent Design and Systems Thinking

Effective work ecosystems don't emerge accidentally—they require intelligent design grounded in systems thinking that considers the complex interactions between places, activities, time, and enabling infrastructure. Yet most workplace strategies treat these elements in isolation, optimizing individual components without understanding their interdependencies or feedback loops.

Systems thinking recognizes that workplace effectiveness emerges from the relationships between elements, not from the elements themselves. A perfectly optimized conference room may fail if it's poorly integrated with booking systems, located inconveniently relative to work patterns, or designed without considering the temporal rhythms of the organization. Similarly, advanced collaboration technology may underperform if deployed without understanding how it affects spatial usage patterns or cultural dynamics.

Intelligent workplace design requires moving beyond linear cause-and-effect thinking to understanding dynamic interactions, feedback loops, and emergent properties. This means recognizing how spatial design affects temporal patterns, how technology choices influence collaboration behaviors, and how organizational activities shape infrastructure requirements. Most importantly, it requires understanding that these relationships are dynamic and must be continuously observed and refined.

The cross-functional imperative becomes clear through a systems lens: workplace effectiveness depends on integration across domains that typically operate independently. No single function possesses the complete perspective necessary to understand the system dynamics that determine workplace outcomes.

The Foundational Questions

Intelligent workplace design begins with understanding three fundamental dimensions that remain constant even as their expressions evolve:

Places: Where value is created and work gets done

Activities: What work is being performed and how value is delivered

Time: When work happens and how temporal patterns shape outcomes

These foundational elements interact with rapidly changing enabling infrastructure—the evolving platforms of methods, tools, spaces, and systems through which work gets expressed.

The Crossfunctional Imperative

Perhaps most critically, developing integrated workplace understanding requires breaking down the functional silos that typically govern workplace decisions. The most effective workplace strategies emerge from cross-functional collaboration that brings together diverse perspectives:

Real Estate and Facilities contribute understanding of spatial dynamics and infrastructure constraints
Technology Teams provide insight into digital infrastructure capabilities and limitations
Human Resources offers perspective on employee experience and organizational culture
Operations brings understanding of workflow patterns and efficiency requirements
Business Strategy provides context about organizational goals and performance metrics

When these functions work in isolation, workplace solutions inevitably reflect the limitations of single-domain, linear thinking. When they collaborate systematically through a systems approach, organizations can develop more sophisticated understanding of how work ecosystems actually function, evolve, and create emergent outcomes.

From Measurement to Understanding

Current approaches focus heavily on measurement: tracking utilization, counting occupancy, and surveying satisfaction. While measurement provides necessary data, it falls short of developing the kind of integrated understanding that enables organizations to adapt effectively to changing conditions.

What's missing is a systematic approach to:

Recognizing patterns across multiple dimensions of work
Synthesizing insights from diverse data sources
Generating adaptive strategies based on evolving understanding
Creating feedback loops that improve organizational learning over time

The Learning Gap

Organizations invest heavily in workplace data but struggle to develop institutional wisdom about how their work environments should evolve. This suggests a fundamental gap between data collection and insight development—a gap that point solutions cannot bridge alone.

The challenge isn't just technical; it's conceptual. Most workplace technology assumes that better measurement leads to better decisions. But measurement without framework leads to data abundance and insight poverty.

Implications for Workplace Strategy

This analysis suggests several implications for organizations developing workplace strategies:

Systems Design over Component Optimization: Rather than optimizing individual systems, focus on intelligent design of integrated work ecosystems with attention to relationships, feedback loops, and emergent properties.
Cross-functional Collaboration over Siloed Solutions: Bring together diverse organizational functions to develop a comprehensive understanding rather than domain-specific metrics.
Pattern Recognition over Metrics: Develop capability to recognize emerging patterns rather than just tracking established metrics.
Learning Systems over Reporting Systems: Build systems that enhance organizational understanding, not just organizational reporting.
Dynamic Strategy over Static Planning: Create adaptive approaches that evolve with changing work patterns rather than fixed implementations.

The current workplace technology landscape, while operationally valuable, lacks frameworks for developing an integrated understanding of work evolution. More fundamentally, it reflects the siloed thinking that prevents organizations from designing truly effective work ecosystems.

Organizations that develop systematic approaches to workplace learning—combining intelligent systems design with cross-functional collaboration—will be better positioned to adapt to continuing workplace transformation. This requires moving beyond measurement to insight generation, beyond functional optimization to systems intelligence, and beyond static solutions to dynamic understanding of emergent workplace behaviors.

This represents both a significant opportunity and a pressing need. As work continues to evolve rapidly, the organizations that thrive will be those that develop superior capability to understand and adapt to change through intelligent design and cross-functional collaboration, rather than simply measure its effects through disconnected systems.

The authors are developing research into systematic approaches for workplace understanding and organizational learning. Further research is planned to explore practical frameworks for implementing these concepts in enterprise environments.

Why Sensors + Digital Exhaust = Unbeatable Insights

Thu, 22 May 2025 16:12:16 GMT

The Complete Picture Requires Two Types of Data. Workplace intelligence is undergoing a profound transformation. Organizations seeking to optimize their workplaces have discovered that neither physical sensors nor digital system data alone provides the complete picture needed for truly informed decision-making. Only by combining these complementary data sources can companies unlock the full potential of workplace intelligence.

Physical sensors capture what's happening in physical spaces, while digital exhaust from collaboration tools, calendars, and HR systems reveals how employees are working virtually. When integrated, these data sources create a comprehensive workplace intelligence layer that drives strategic decisions across real estate, HR, IT, and operations departments.

The most successful workplace intelligence platforms now integrate both data types to provide insights that would be impossible with either source alone. This approach enables organizations to optimize their entire workplace ecosystem - both physical and digital - while supporting the hybrid work models that have become the norm.

How Leading Solutions Integrate Sensor and Digital Data

The most advanced workplace intelligence solutions employ sophisticated integration approaches to combine physical and digital data:

VergeSense's Occupancy Intelligence Platform unifies data from proprietary optical sensors with digital workplace applications, including Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and over 50 other technology providers. Their "Workplace Assistant" analyzes combined data to provide personalized recommendations for workspace optimization. At the same time, their integration with Microsoft Places enables automatic release of unused meeting rooms based on actual vs. scheduled usage.

Density combines privacy-first depth sensors with digital workplace data through API integrations with booking and scheduling systems. Their analytics platform reveals how spaces are actually used versus intended, enabling data-driven decisions about space design and allocation.

XY Sense uses ceiling-mounted computer vision sensors that connect with booking platforms and workplace experience tools through their real-time occupancy API. Their sensors require 2-3x fewer units than competitors, resulting in lower total cost of ownership.

These integrated solutions typically employ a three-tier architecture:

Sensing Layer: Physical sensors collecting real-world data
Network/Edge Layer: Gateways pre-processing data and transmitting to cloud
Cloud/Application Layer: Core integration platform combining physical and digital data

Most platforms use event-driven architectures where sensors and digital systems emit events when changes occur, enabling real-time updates and analytics. Data normalization techniques reconcile disparate data sources through canonical data models, feature scaling, and temporal alignment to create a unified view of the workplace.

Unique Capabilities Enabled by Each Data Source

Sensor data and digital exhaust each enable distinct metrics and insights that the other cannot provide:

Sensor-enabled metrics:

Real-time space occupancy rates - Percentage of workspaces occupied at any moment
Peak occupancy patterns - Maximum occupants in spaces during specific time periods
Space utilization by type - Utilization rates of different space types
Meeting room right-sizing opportunities - Mismatches between room capacity and typical meeting size
Circulation and movement patterns - How people move through spaces
Indoor environmental quality metrics - Temperature, humidity, CO2 levels affecting comfort
No-show meeting rates - Percentage of booked rooms that remain unoccupied
Traffic patterns and hotspots - High-activity areas requiring additional resources

Digital exhaust-enabled metrics:

Digital collaboration patterns - Frequency, duration, and types of digital interactions
Software and application usage - Which digital tools are most frequently used
Virtual meeting time - Total hours spent in virtual meetings
Digital communication networks - Who communicates with whom
Document collaboration metrics - How frequently shared documents are accessed
Digital workflow efficiency - Time spent on specific digital processes
After-hours digital activity - Work performed outside standard hours
Focus time metrics - Uninterrupted periods without digital collaboration

The true power emerges when these data sources combine to create metrics that neither could enable alone:

Physical-digital presence correlation - Comparing physical presence with digital activity
Collaboration effectiveness index - Combining in-person interaction with digital collaboration outcomes
Space impact on digital productivity - Correlating environments with digital output
Technology utilization by location - How digital tool usage varies based on physical location
Meeting effectiveness metrics - Comparing in-person vs. virtual meeting outcomes
Environment-productivity correlations - How physical factors affect digital work

ROI Comparison: Sensors vs. Digital Data Capture

The cost structures and ROI metrics for these approaches differ significantly:

Sensor implementation costs:

Initial hardware: $100-500 per device depending on type
Installation: Additional costs for wiring and infrastructure
Coverage requirements: Varies by sensor type (one PIR sensor per room, one desk sensor per workstation, one camera/optical sensor per 500-1,000 sq. ft.)
Ongoing costs: 5-15% of initial hardware cost annually for maintenance, plus software licensing ($0.05-0.50 per sq. ft. per month)

Digital data capture costs:

Initial investment: Lower (leverages existing systems)
Software licensing: $2-6 per user per month (e.g., Microsoft Workplace Analytics)
Implementation time: 1-4 weeks for software integration (vs. 2-8 weeks for sensor deployment)

The ROI calculation shifts dramatically when considering the business outcomes enabled by each approach:

Sensor-only ROI examples:

Fresenius Medical Care: Saved $6M annually through lease avoidance after sensors revealed only 20% utilization of headquarters
Global Financial Institution: Reduced cleaning costs by 50% ($2M annually) using occupancy-based cleaning
Rapid7: Saved $1.5M in buildout costs by modifying meeting room designs based on occupancy data

Digital-only ROI examples:

Microsoft Sales Organization: Achieved 5.3% efficiency improvement saving $4.9M through digital collaboration insights
Financial Services Company: 83% reduction in meeting inefficiency using digital collaboration tools

Combined approach ROI examples:

Global Financial Services Company: Reduced ghost bookings by 30% by combining desk sensors with booking system data
BCG: Saved $50K/month by integrating VergeSense sensors with TEEM and Outlook to automatically release unused bookings

The timeframe for realizing ROI also varies by approach:

Sensor-based: Quick wins (0-6 months) in energy savings and meeting efficiency; major real estate savings (18+ months) from lease renegotiations
Digital-only: Early gains (0-6 months) in meeting efficiency and collaboration; longer-term benefits (12+ months) in productivity and culture
Combined approach: Accelerated ROI timeline with stronger early wins (3-6 months) and more substantial medium-term gains (6-12 months)

While both approaches offer significant value, organizations achieve the most substantial ROI with combined data strategies that leverage both physical sensors and digital data.

Creating More Valuable Insights Through Comprehensive Data

The evidence clearly shows that comprehensive data (sensors + digital exhaust) creates more valuable insights than either source alone:

A global financial services company implemented sensors throughout their offices while analyzing Microsoft 365 usage data. By correlating physical presence with digital activity, they discovered that collaborative work was more effective when teams spent 2-3 days per week together in-person, specifically for complex problem-solving tasks. Digital productivity remained high on remote days, but innovation metrics were higher during in-office days.
A technology firm used integrated data to optimize their real estate portfolio, discovering they could reduce their office footprint by 30% while improving collaboration. They identified that certain technical teams were more productive when co-located, while others showed no significant difference between remote and in-office work. This allowed them to implement targeted space assignments and save $2 million annually.
A healthcare provider integrated sensor data with their electronic health record system activity, discovering that clinical staff productivity increased when workstations were positioned to allow both privacy and visibility. By redesigning nurse stations based on both physical movement patterns and digital work needs, they increased time spent on patient care by 23% while reducing documentation errors by 18%.

These examples demonstrate the limitations of single-source approaches.

Sensor-only limitations:

Absence of context (shows presence but not purpose or productivity)
No visibility into remote work effectiveness
Inability to measure digital work output

Digital-only limitations:

Physical context blindness (cannot capture environmental impact)
Missing informal in-person interactions
No insight into how physical conditions affect work experience

Supporting Cross-Functional Decision-Making

The integration of sensor data with digital exhaust enables truly cross-functional decision-making across departments:

Real Estate and Facilities

Key metrics: Space utilization, cost per square foot, peak occupancy
Decisions enabled: Portfolio optimization, space design, lease negotiations
Example insight: Combining meeting room utilization data with calendar patterns revealed that larger conference rooms were only at 30% capacity, enabling reallocation of space to in-demand collaboration areas

Human Resources

Key metrics: Collaboration patterns, work-life balance, team cohesion
Decisions enabled: Hybrid work policies, talent strategies, workplace experience
Example insight: Correlating in-office days with digital collaboration metrics revealed optimal in-office schedules for different teams based on their work patterns

IT and Technology

Key metrics: Technology utilization, digital workspace effectiveness
Decisions enabled: Technology investments, digital workspace design
Example insight: Correlating physical presence with application usage showed that certain collaborative tools were underutilized in physical meetings, prompting training initiatives

Operations

Key metrics: Operational efficiency, resource utilization
Decisions enabled: Service delivery models, resource allocation
Example insight: Combining badge data with sensor data and helpdesk tickets identified opportunities to optimize front desk staffing based on actual arrival patterns

The Future Demands Integration

The workplace intelligence market is evolving rapidly toward more integrated solutions that combine physical sensor data with digital exhaust from workplace systems. This convergence enables organizations to gain a comprehensive understanding of how their workplaces function across both physical and digital dimensions.

The most successful workplace intelligence strategies will be those that recognize the complementary nature of these data sources and leverage both to create a complete picture of the modern workplace - spanning physical spaces, digital tools, and the complex interplay between them.

As we move further into the era of hybrid work, organizations that embrace this integrated approach to workplace intelligence will be best positioned to create workplaces that truly support productivity, collaboration, and employee wellbeing while optimizing costs and resources.

The Evolution of Buy-side Commercial Real Estate Intermediaries: From Space Brokers to Strategic Partners

Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:17:27 GMT

The rise of technology-enabled "work-from-anywhere" is fundamentally reshaping commercial real estate, compelling buy-side intermediaries to transform their value proposition radically. While finding space, negotiating leases, and managing transactions remain important, these traditional services no longer suffice in an era where organizations are reimagining the very nature of work itself.

The Traditional Model's Misalignment

Historically, commercial real estate intermediaries built their success on market knowledge and transaction management, measuring achievement through square footage leased and deals closed. However, this transaction-centric approach has become increasingly obsolete as companies embrace hybrid work models and optimize their office footprints.

A fundamental misalignment exists in the traditional model: intermediaries earn higher commissions by securing larger spaces with longer lease terms—often in direct opposition to their client's evolving needs. This compensation structure, while historically profitable, has become anachronistic in today's dynamic business environment. Though clients ultimately finance this model through rent-embedded fees paid to building owners, the system primarily serves property owners' interests rather than tenants' operational objectives.

The Strategic Partnership Evolution

Forward-thinking real estate intermediaries are now repositioning themselves as strategic advisors, offering sophisticated services aligned with modern organizational needs:

Strategic Advisory Services Modern intermediaries help organizations develop comprehensive workplace strategies encompassing portfolio optimization, location strategy in a hybrid world, and sustainability planning. The focus has shifted from pure transactions to driving transformational business outcomes.
Data-Driven Intelligence Leading firms leverage advanced analytics to provide insights into occupancy patterns, employee behavior, and space utilization. This empirical approach enables predictive modeling and ROI analysis, facilitating informed real estate investment decisions.
Experience Design As workplace environments now compete with home offices, intermediaries increasingly focus on employee experience design. This includes technology integration, collaborative space programming, and change management support to enhance productivity and engagement.
Financial Innovation The market demands greater flexibility in real estate commitments. Progressive intermediaries are developing innovative lease structures, space-as-a-service models, and sophisticated cost allocation methodologies aligned with hybrid work patterns.

Technology Integration Modern workplace solutions must seamlessly blend physical and digital environments. Leading intermediaries advise on collaboration tools, space booking systems, and smart building technologies that enable effective hybrid work.

Continuous Partnership Model Perhaps the most significant evolution is the shift from transactional relationships to ongoing partnerships. Modern intermediaries provide regular strategy reviews, performance monitoring, and continuous improvement programs. This evolution drives changes in the traditional compensation models employed by intermediaries as commissions likely shrink, but value creation opportunities emerge and expand.

Revenue Model Evolution:

While these changes may appear dramatic in terms of commission restructuring, they represent a natural evolution toward a more sustainable and value-aligned business model. The shift from predominantly transaction-based fees to a more balanced mix of advisory, performance, and transaction fees enables more stable, predictable revenue streams while incentivizing innovation and greater value delivery to clients.

Building the Future

Success in this transformed landscape requires a fundamental reimagining of the intermediary role. Tomorrow's industry leaders will:

Lead with strategic insight into clients' operational objectives rather than focusing solely on real estate transactions
Seamlessly integrate multiple service lines into cohesive solutions
Make substantial investments in technology and analytics capabilities
Develop robust consulting practices
Create sustainable, recurring revenue streams
Focus on measurable business outcomes aligned with client goals

This transformation demands new skill sets, innovative pricing models, and significant technology investments. However, for those willing to evolve, the opportunity is compelling: to transition from transaction facilitator to indispensable strategic partner.

The future of commercial real estate intermediaries lies not in obsolescence but in delivering value far beyond traditional transactions. Those who successfully navigate this evolution will thrive in the new world of work, becoming essential partners in their clients' business success.

Re-Engineering for an alternative future for office investment and operation

Mon, 20 May 2024 16:52:16 GMT

For many investors and their capital partners, Covid 19 sped up behavioral change in how companies and their employees are working differently, altering their fundamental need for office space, and consequentially gutting the equity in their office investments. Asset after asset is in the news daily setting new price-per-square-foot lows that are unprecedented.

Many veterans in this business space hold out hope that the markets are just in a deep trough that will rebound—like in all cycles—back to a normal state at some point down the road.

Sadly, for those waiting for a return to normal, IMHO it just won’t happen. And this is why:

On the left is what “going to work” looked like for most of the last 100 years. It was primarily about place. After all, this is where your coworkers were, and where you interacted with company data and information. On the right-side future, going to work is fully realized around behavior and technology supported by place. In other words, the primacy of place in implementing work has been structurally disintermediated.

“Going to work” may become a quaint concept remembered in the future as something someone used to say walking out the door every morning. While it’s simple to conceptually understand what is taking place, if you are in the real estate business it’s deeply complicated to figure out the pivots you or your organization needs to make.

About 10 years ago, a couple of McKinsey consultants published research about the process of business model innovation across different vertical industries, which is routinely driven by new-entry players rather than existing sector market leaders. They postulated as to how innovation might be driven from within an industry, by an established player able to read the tea leaves and then adapt.

Their research encouraged company leaders to revisit fundamentals that never get discussed. Fundamentals so ingrained they do not warrant agenda time during strategy offsites and certainly never enter routine operational conversations.

Revisiting these fundamentals by commercial real estate industry professionals is no different than for any other vertical industry and the exercise begins as follows:

Identify the attributes of the current dominant business model.
Dissect the long-held beliefs (truths) common to the business operators.
Turn the underlying beliefs on their head (brainstorm new, maybe even crazy ideas).
Sanity test the business model reframe (ID relevant analogies sourced from other industries).
Translate the reframe into a new business model for the business space you are in.

Applying this model to Commercial Real Estate office investment and operation

We’ve been using this diagnostic model with our clients for several years now and found definite consistency of results among different leadership teams which, as counterintuitive as this is for many office asset investors in the US markets, the findings paint a picture of a decidedly different future state of operation.

Here is a synthesis of where we believe the industry is headed and the issues that need to be addressed.

1. Identify the attributes of the dominant business model.

Core customers are the capital markets, and other investors—never the actual end-user of the product (the tenant).
Create cash flows / bond yields for >5 years only that can be forecasted.
Apply a multiple (cap rate) to the portfolio of bond yields to establish value for trade, refi, etc.

Very low lease churns a priority.

Transactions with tenants are nearly always bespoke, and process, capital, and time intensive.

Very high cost-of-goods-sold (COGS) to put leases in place.

Capital / process intensive on tenant turnover / churn.

Ownership objectives are in fundamental opposition to goals of end-user (sell the biggest possible space, for longest term lockup).

Provision only basic life support services to the tenant (HVAC, water, electricity, and security).

2. Dissect the long-held beliefs.

We are in the space business.
Real estate is about location, location, and location.
All we must compete with is other buildings nearby.
Our relationship with our tenants is strictly transactional.
Tenants are comfortable making long-term commitments.
Tenants only want custom-built spaces.
User experience is unimportant.
The leasing process isn’t broken; it’s always worked that way.
Churn is our enemy.

3. Turn underlying belief around.

What if we were in the “satisfying our tenants’ business objectives” business? (wouldn’t we help them go smaller, for shorter periods of time?).
What if our competition is new ways of working, and not just other buildings?
What if our tenants don’t want to commit for longer than 5 years anymore? (tenants’ planning cycles are shortening to 2 to 3 years!)
What if we focused on creating NOI, and profit rather than just rent? (how do we finance that?)
What if user experience was valued by our tenants? (is this a point of differentiation?)
What if we shifted away from custom builds for our tenants? (does plug-and-play make sense for larger uses?)
What if we streamlined the space acquisition process? (using AI, pre-builds, standard documentation, etc. etc.)
What if we created a value-add relationship with our tenants? (can we make a difference for them that is material to their operating goals?)
What if we harnessed high churn to create value and NOI? (price mobility maybe not a bad thing given our big leases are locked in at the bottom of the market)

4. Sanity test the reframe.

Multi-family averages 1-year contracts, with low capital intensity on churn.
Hospitality averages less than 70% occupancy year-round but makes money.
Hospitality has great customer loyalty derived from experience and loyalty programs.
Hospitality makes money from services other than “rent”.
MF and hospitality both value investments using trailing metrics freeing them up to innovate.

5. Translate the reframe into the industry’s new business model.

Adapt to the changing needs of the end-user more effectively than competitors. This requires a capital stack aligned with deploying products and services whose NOI attributes may not be congruent with investor / lenders / and the overall capital markets’ traditional parameters for value creation.
Deemphasize the importance of developing “bond yields” in favor of cash flow and NOI and repeatable profit over yield lock-in.
Employ backward-value trailing multiples on NOI (both rent and services) or miss a huge part of the growing market for shorter duration products.
Deploy more pre-built inventory and shift away from predominantly custom / bespoke space from the “studs up”.
Embrace higher churn and frequency of contract turnover in investment underwriting and operations.
Lower the capital intensity historically going into tenant turnover significantly increasing space and materiel repurposing.
Densify the asset (more tenants per square foot) to improve “plant utilization” and ultimately asset capacity potential.
Up the asset’s value proposition to end-users, help companies take less space, for shorter amounts of time to improve their utilization and reduce their financial leakage.

Conclusions

There is an old saying, “if it was easy, everyone would do it”. What the exercise above shows is how a company (or real estate investor/operator) might visualize operating into a changed future; unfortunately, it also reinforces why industry innovations are introduced more often by new players who don’t have legacy platforms to reengineer.

Making these changes will be hard to do, even for the most willing and enthusiastic players. Many of my friends in the commercial real estate office sector have already shifted their focus to other asset classes experiencing less disruption. It’s a lot easier to do that!

I personally believe that real estate office investors who remain stubbornly focused on perpetuating the legacy model of strictly leasing custom space for the long-term are in a flat-to-declining market with low growth prospects.

Those who retool, adapt, and develop deep expertise into how work is changing, and develop fluid investment and operating strategies to support their end-user customer companies in their own journeys will be well positioned to outperform for the long term—no matter how this sector continues to change and evolve.

Operationalizing the Hybrid Work Codex can lead to meaningful improvements for a company and its people

Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:31:44 GMT

The Hybrid Work Codex is a framework to enable a company to respond effectively to the complexities of the modern work environment.

Instead of seeing work as a singular, monolithic entity, the Hybrid Work Codex splits it into two distinct but interconnected dimensions.

Hybrid Work Codex aims to map out these different combinations of work locations and typologies.

By understanding how different types of work are best suited to different environments, organizations can create more flexible and effective work policies. This can also help in creating better physical and digital workspaces that cater to these varying needs.

Operationalizing the Hybrid Work Codex and systematically gathering data based on its framework can lead to numerous improvements for a company. These improvements span operational efficiency, employee well-being, cost savings, and innovation.

There are several ways companies can benefit:

1. Enhanced Productivity: Understanding where and when specific tasks are most effectively executed allows companies to optimize work schedules and environments, leading to increased output and efficiency.

2. Employee Well-being & Satisfaction: By providing flexibility based on the Hybrid Work Codex data, employees can work in environments where they feel most comfortable and productive. Reducing the need for commutes or allowing employees to work during their most productive hours can significantly boost morale and decrease burnout.

3. Optimized Use of Physical Space: With data on where employees prefer to work for specific tasks, companies can design or redesign office spaces to cater to these needs, such as creating more collaborative spaces or quiet focus areas. This can also lead to cost savings by right-sizing office spaces or adopting flexible real estate strategies.

4. Cost Savings: Understanding the Hybrid Work Codex can lead to reduced overheads by optimizing office space, decreasing utility costs, and reducing the need for physical resources. Companies can also make informed decisions about investments in technology or infrastructure, ensuring that money is spent where it will have the most impact.

5. Talent Attraction & Retention: Offering a flexible work environment based on the Hybrid Work Codex can make a company more attractive to potential employees. Current employees are more likely to stay with a company that offers a flexible and understanding work environment tailored to their needs.

6. Enhanced Collaboration & Innovation: By identifying when and where team collaborations or ideations are most effective, companies can facilitate more innovative brainstorming sessions. This can lead to new product ideas, improved processes, or breakthrough solutions to problems.

7. Risk Management: By having a clear view of when and where employees are working, companies can better manage risks related to security, data breaches, and health (like in the case of a pandemic).

8. Data-driven Decision Making: Companies can use the data from the Hybrid Work Codex to make informed decisions about everything from HR policies to IT investments. This data-driven approach ensures that decisions are based on real-world employee behavior and preferences, rather than assumptions.

9. Training & Development: Understanding the Hybrid Work Codex can also help companies identify when and where training and development activities are most effective, allowing for tailored programs that yield better results.

10. Cultural Cohesion: By respecting and responding to employee work preferences and patterns, companies send a message that they value their workforce, leading to a more cohesive and positive company culture.

IN SUMMARY

Operationalizing the Hybrid Work Codex can provide a holistic understanding of how work is conducted in modern organizations. This perspective allows for a suite of improvements that can drive a company's success in multiple domains.

Welcome to the Omnichannel Work Era

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 01:20:27 GMT

If companies should treat their employees as customers (they should), and smart companies continue to invest significantly in employee experience , what can we learn from recent, radical transformations to customer experience in the retail sector?

“Omnichannel” is not a concept we as consumers think much about in our daily lives, but it has become ever-present. It’s Starbucks anticipating your morning order in-app (along with a few hundred others) and making sure your local shop is staffed and stocked to get you your coffee right on time, it’s beauty brands selling directly on TikTok through your favorite influencer, or Delta asking you in its app if you want it to schedule you a Lyft to the airport ahead of your flight. It’s a force that is now ever-present, and it has revolutionized operating models of retailers who are able to better understand their customers, meet them where they are, and personalize their engagement.

It's a strategy that took years of trial and error, experimentation (and extensive legislative work to develop proper data protections), but over the last decade omnichannel strategies have revolutionized the retail industry. They’ve become ubiquitous because, when mastered, the strategy seamlessly delivers high-quality customer experiences across diverse channels and on individual consumers’ terms. And the combination of all of these is now proven to exponentially build brand loyalty (and value…).

Omnichannel strategies deliver personalized, dynamic engagement for digital-native, on-demand generations that are constantly on the go and expect brands to keep up – and they’re coming to the future of work...

In 2010, reacting to key technological advancements that enabled people to consume whatever they want, whenever they wanted, wherever they were, the retail industry developed the term “omnichannel” to describe a strategy that top brands were developing to keep up with these anytime, anywhere consumers. Realizing they had the technological means to do so, smart retailers suddenly began pivoting their posture away from “how do we convince consumers to come into our brick-and-mortar stores” and into “how do we better weave our brands into the unique behaviors of each consumer?”

Sound familiar?

This posture-switch, from “how do we convince consumers to come into our stores?” to “how do we weave ourselves into the day-to-day behaviors of our customers?”, revolutionized retail operating models. But that transformation was complex and took bold steps by early-adopters. It required retailers to execute company-wide transformations that involved most of the organization’s functions (marketing, real estate, sales, IT, HR, supply chains), as opposed to quick fixes within operating silos. Smart retailers quickly realized though that the strategy was becoming table stakes. In 2014, four years into the retail industry transformation, an MIT study described omnichannel consumers as the central force shaping the future of retail. The strategy is responsible for resurrecting tiring brands like Best Buy, reinforcing dominance in brands like Nike and Amazon, and is the primary strategy adopted by new retail brands today.

In an era where people can work anytime, anywhere, and consistent data now tells us employees empowered with flexibility are more productive, how do employers develop the right strategies, tools and resources to create the most efficient, valuable organizations full of the happiest, most committed and productive employees?

The retail industry is showing us that, when cooked up just right, we can all have our cake and eat it too. It’s a complex challenge. But luckily strong retail brands offer a decade-long track record to study and adapt into “omnichannel work strategies”. In the weeks ahead, we’ll dive deeper into impacts omnichannel work strategies will have on employees, enterprises, and office owners, and what it will take for bold companies to begin charting a course to this future.

Welcome to the Omnichannel Work Era.

AOR Re-brands as Adaptiv with focus on the intersection of people, work and place

patti@premiseadvertising.com (Patti Faulkner) — Mon, 05 Dec 2022 20:02:56 GMT

“This is a first-of-its-kind team to solve entirely new, entangled challenges in the new era of work and deliver strategic clarity, operational confidence and solutions empowering businesses to thrive.”— Jefferey V. Langdon, Managing Principal, Adaptiv

AOR (Adaptive Office Resources) announced that it has completed a major rebranding and renaming as Adaptiv Management Consulting (Adaptiv). The firm is leading the way in the development of next-generation solutions for enterprise companies , office investors and other sector constituents to solve for the changing relationship companies and their employees have with work and place.

Adaptiv is a next-generation management consulting firm operating at the nexus of people, work, and place delivering impactful, measurable yield. The new name represents the need for clients to effectively respond and adapt to evolving workforce behavior accelerated by the pandemic. Navigating these times represents unprecedented turbulence for enterprises, office investors, and sector service providers.

Managing Principal, Jeffrey V. Langdon has been at the forefront of change in how companies and people produce work for nearly two decades. This experience has fostered the insight for Adaptiv Management Consulting’s heightened perspective.

“Organizations have an opportunity right now to go forward into a more dynamic, flexible world of work that better empowers diverse talent and teams, unlocking long-term value to businesses,” stated Jeffrey Langdon, managing principal. “Doing so is complex – enterprises must re-engineer business processes, policies, norms, tools and resources across an organization – but the upsides to productivity and efficiency are enormous.”

To serve this expanded market, Adaptiv has brought in select partners and thought leaders with deep experience at the intersection of people, technology, and workplace. This expanded group has focused capabilities spanning corporate strategy, leadership, digital transformation, employee experience, human capital management, and workplace strategy.

“This is a first-of-its-kind team to solve entirely new, entangled challenges developing in this new era of work,” stated Langdon. “We deliver strategic clarity, operating confidence, and solutions that empower businesses to thrive in a more dynamic, flexible world.”

Visit adaptiv.work to explore the new website, brand, and solutions.

About Adaptiv Management Consulting
Adaptiv Management Consulting is a next-generation management consulting firm operating at the nexus of people, work, and place delivering impactful, measurable yield for enterprise companies, office investors and other sector constituents.

Negotiating a landscape marked by paradigm change

Sat, 08 Oct 2022 21:06:03 GMT

Cloud-based business infrastructure digitization and ubiquitous connectivity has literally unplugged today's workforce from the need to come into "the office".

Businesses of all shapes and sizes, even pre-pandemic were already operationalizing a New Work Paradigm TM where they provide their employees with the flexibility to decide where, when and how to work.

Modalities once impractical to platform business operations such as working from home (WFH) and the increasing use of the "Workplace-as-a-Service” (WaaS) option are legitimate alternatives to the traditional mainstay of term office space.

As businesses question the viability of even using a physical office at all, there is going to be a long-term reduction in the average square footage per employee (SFPE) metric across the general office user spectrum to unprecedented levels.

Companies are fundamentally going to use less traditional office space, period-end of story. This will affect the dynamics of the supply-side environment and the procurement characteristics of the demand-side occupiers permanently.

AOR calls this new environment Office 3.0 and it will have its own challenges as well as opportunities for real estate equity investment, asset ownership and operations.

In the coming years, owners will scramble to fill space as they compete with these nascent non-traditional work alternatives and strive to create a rationale for occupiers to not only choose their particular office product, but for the employees of those occupiers to have a good reason to come into an office at all.

Adaptiv is leading the conversations about these developments and reshaping thinking for constituencies within a commercial real estate ecosystem where no one will be spared.

The gap has never been more significant between the objectives of traditional owners and tenants

Sat, 08 Oct 2022 20:59:54 GMT

Is ownership truly providing any material advantage over its competition?

Owners, capital, and lenders want locked-in, predictable "bond yield" lease commitments for a material period of time for to which they can apply a cap rate. Further, they want to secure this commitment from a "credit tenant" who is happy to deploy additional capital resources guaranteeing this cash flow back to ownership no matter what.

End-users want the exact opposite. Tenants want to deploy their capital into areas producing an ROI (not into new furniture!), and to align their real estate commitment to the predictability of their business plans. Given the new latitudes around work-from-home (WFH), this will be harder than ever to rationalize as businesses get their arms around how much space they really need once these new behaviors settle in.

That means a 5+ year lease should map perfectly to a 5+ year strategy? Unlikely. In the modern era, company planning horizons average less than 18 months as evolutions in technology, operating objectives, Talent markets, and M&A activity all interfere with the plan.

Add all of this up with the fact that most (if not all) owners deliver an end-user experience that is relatively undifferentiated from other office alternatives the tenant has, and this provides ownership with little, if any material advantage over its competition.

Asset-level Activation for Institutional Owner

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:02:06 GMT

Unlocking $57M in value across a legacy office development

An institutional owner with an international portfolio of office assets had a moribund, multi-building office complex of 1.5MM square feet with substantial vacancy. In addition to much-needed physical improvements there was nothing other than massive discounting as a tool to lease the almost 400K square feet of empty office space inventory.

Adaptiv developed a product strategy that incorporated a blend of "spec suites", coworking and shared meeting / common areas as part of the new, improved UX (user experience). The design and operation for the non-traditional leased space required sourcing a 3rd party operator and structuring a model with shared upside for both ownership and the 3rd party operator innovative enough to pass the test of lenders and new investor / buyers.

At project end, the program was expected to deliver anticipated value increase of over $57MM to asset stakeholders.

Strategy Development for Institutional Owner

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:02:02 GMT

Leading executive leadership to next-generation investment strategy

Adaptiv led a comprehensive process to unlock thought leadership from the key executive stakeholders at institutional ownership client. The team first led various discovery and benchmarking sessions to establish a baseline and evaluate against client's competitors. Adaptiv then worked closely with senior management on the architecture for the “2.0 version” of their operations, portfolio composition and asset management model.

Target improvement areas were expanded NOIs, improved ROIs and increased asset value via enhanced cap rate treatment on divestiture. Program goals spotlighted over $100MM in new value creation over a 36-month implementation that client is currently executing on.

Unlocking Value across a diversified real estate portfolio

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:59 GMT

An owner/operator with a 25+ MM square foot portfolio of office assets distributed over a variety of sunbelt markets, was realizing average performance and returns. Their goal was to unlock the Company’s intrinsic value but had been unsuccessful.

Adaptiv helped to underwrite the offering and facilitate a divestiture to an offshore private equity firm achieving stakeholder objectives.

PropTech Competitive Landscape Analysis and Growth Strategy

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:55 GMT

A principal of Adaptiv consulted alongside client executive team on brand positioning and growth strategy during a unique recapitalization moment for the business.

Adaptiv was central to reorienting the business ahead of major fundraising efforts and developing key growth strategies for both the supply and demand segments of the client's business.

Expanding a WaaS operator into 20 locations and 500K square feet

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:53 GMT

Adaptiv was selected by the WaaS operator with the largest Series A round in history and who was recognized nationally as “one to watch” by Bisnow, CBRE and Reuters, to lead the program development and management of its US expansion.

The Adaptiv team led all facets of the expansion process from market analyses and comparisons, to on-the-ground surveying, to coordination with operator's design team, and designing and negotiating a combination of traditional leases, revenue shares and management agreements that best aligned with operator's financial position.

The results of the work expanded their portfolio into 500k square feet across 16 new MSA's and advised on the tiered product solutions for asset owners, enterprise companies, and businesses of all sizes.

US Market strategy and entrance for overseas-based WaaS operator

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:45 GMT

Adaptiv worked with an offshore-based WaaS operator seeking to expand its presence in North American markets. A variety of key MSAs were evaluated and underwritten, eventually baking out the deployment plan for key first, second and third phase markets, and target assets/owner relationships located in each market that would best serve their strategic objectives.

The work informed expansion strategy currently underway by the client.

M&A Advisory for a Mature National WaaS Operator

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:42 GMT

This profitable operator sought to divest its operations levering traditional investment banking channels. Adaptiv was able to redevelop the market positioning and narrative, bringing in new interested merger and potential buyers.

This work led to a successful divestiture to an operator seeking to expand its footprint in the US. This transaction unlocked maximum value for shareholders.

Re-imagining Remote Work for a Fortune 1000 Company

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:01:38 GMT

Employee engagement discovery and ideation to support enterprise's transition to a distributed workforce

Adaptiv and its Principals led an employee engagement study with a 2.2B Fortune 1000 client. The client, beginning its broader shift to a distributed workforce, sought specifically to better understand the needs of their existing remote and distributed workforce as it related to DEI, daily productivity and technology resources, collaboration, learning and development, relationship with peers, inclusion and, ultimately, retention.

The 6-month project included countless one-to-one interviews, observations, analysis and benchmarking, small-group sessions with executives and various other diverse stakeholders, and employee surveys and workshops to clearly establish problem-set and prescribe various solutions. Also looked at how gamification could play a role in employee programming and retention.

Findings and recommendation from this study were instrumental and used nearly in whole by the client to design the look, features, functionality, and structure of their first-ever internal employee digital platform.

Office Real Estate Portfolio Rightsizing

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 20:43:48 GMT

Unlocking value for high-profile private equity firm's portfolio of companies

Adaptiv worked with a well-known private equity investment group to rationalize the physical footprints for 16 separate operating investments, in different vertical industry segments and with differing approaches to platforming real estate and operating policy.

Goals for this work was to improve run-rate NOI across the portfolio of companies by at least 10% blended, with no loss in productivity. Value creation hitting this target was well over $80MM to investors and Adaptiv was able to develop and launch the plan, expected to realize most of the anticipated gain within about 36 months.

Global advisory firm in highly competitive talent market

Fri, 07 Oct 2022 20:27:19 GMT

Realigning business goals with employee preferences to drive long-term enterprise value

Adaptiv evaluated the client's physical operating footprint as well as the work patterns for five distinct types of employees. The objective was to establish a data-driven view of how the built environment aligned with actual employee-elected decisions about how, when and where they chose to produce their work.

Insight into the gap between these two attributes allowed Adaptiv to re-develop an approach to "place" and strike the balance between business goals and employee preferences. Overall aims were to increase retention (by empowering employees with more choice) from a relatively average turnover per annum of about 20% and reduce it down to a target of 15% and, secondarily, reduce real estate inefficiency where possible.

Adaptiv developed the model to increase alignment between these attributes that included accelerating real estate turnover cycles, creating a more distributed physical workplace footprint--including work-from-home (WFH)--and developing process around expanding the menu of 3rd place options available to touch down in. Further, we helped to source and redefine the supply relationships in place to enable the program to operationalize.

Delivering against the turnover metric alone was judged to have material impact on Company NOI, and accretive to EV over time.

How COVID, customers and (employee) choice workplace trends in 2022 are driving change

Mon, 25 Apr 2022 21:47:55 GMT

After a decade plus of light disruption, commercial real estate is in flux again—and this time it’s serious!

COVID has accelerated fully remote and hybrid working, and we believe those office owners who want to bring companies and their employees back to the office must evolve their thinking about how to create “value”. If they aren’t looking at a fresh 3- to 5-year roadmap through new lenses, they should be.

For office owner/operators the plan to buy low, fill vacancy and sell to a buyer in 5-, 7- and 10-year cycles will likely be altered by the behaviors of their occupiers. We see driving forces coming from the three C’s - Covid, Customers and (employee) Choice - affecting the investment environment, asset operations, and actual office space use. The forces at work will necessitate big changes to effectively adjust.

Covid-19. While every segment of our lives has been upended in the last two years from COVID, until just recently the office market seemed steadfast on its traditional conventions. Some owners have innovated by embracing coworking and other agile product types, and incorporated some type of this into their portfolios. Others have even taken steps to to build it themselves. Building lobbies and common spaces have been altered to offer the coffee-shop retail appeal that WeWork and Industrious have already well honed. Has this been enough to bring people back to the office during a time many have worked effectively from home to the surprise of their managers? Probably not.

Something more dramatic that isn’t as easily recognized has transpired quietly. Work has now become a verb, and—this is unprecedented—is no longer tethered to any kind of physical location. Further, this isn’t even close to being over as the digitization of company infrastructure keeps advancing. Owners need to offer the businesses that still use physical real estate for officing purposes something that ensures the “office” remains relevant and can act as a magnet for their workforce.

Customer. Companies are scrambling to offset the “great resignations” with workplace options that the individual elects themselves rather than an option dictated to them. The more choice they give their employees, eventually the less they will need office space to support them. It may not happen overnight, but when that 50,000 square foot lease is up for renewal, it will eventually be for far less space than before. How can this be monetized for owners and not presage a net loss scenario? There are ways—if ownership can get ahead of it!

(employee) Choice. Companies that compete for talent either to recruit to their cause or to keep the talent they have already are at big disadvantage if they don’t offer those employees the CHOICE to work when, where, and how they want to. This is the new reality an owner’s “tenants” are facing every day. The challenge owners must solve to is why THIS office is worth coming into often enough that a customer’s employees will show up without being mandated to.

We do not believe in the “death of the office”—far from it. Change doesn’t scare us. It fuels our innovation at AOR. We know that the “office” fulfills a series of important roles for businesses of all types and sizes. We believe for ownership to prosper in this changing market owner/operators will need to realize they are now competing with an employee’s option to stay home and work or go to somewhere easy to pop over to near their homes. This is very tough competition indeed!

A myriad of influences are at work to shift the buying preferences of the end-user; a deeper understanding of the implications is mission-critical toward developing an effective response that helps an owner stay commercially relevant. We are clearly moving into territory the likes of which no one has ever experienced before.

What the CRE industry can learn from Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill

Mon, 07 Mar 2022 01:07:15 GMT

The linkages that struck me between baseball and commercial real estate were about how the decades-long way of doing things was overdue to challenge, and about how hard it was to actually bring meaningful change about. It took leadership, intestinal fortitude, and ultimately some proof before anyone was open to getting on board.

Let me start by saying that there is nothing definitive per se in this first writing. I am merely stirring the pot with some ideas that I will be expanding on in the coming weeks and months for those who are interested enough to take this ride with me.

I have been meaning to sit down and write this for a while. COVID 19 has, for better or worse, given us all time to hang out and ruminate on the bigger picture. By the way, I won't be prognosticating (today at least) about COVID’s long-term impact on things—there are enough people out there opining on that already. That said, I deeply believe that changes I expect to play out over the next 10+ years leading up to 2030 will still be happening anyway—now much faster—so maybe things mature by 2025, a full five years earlier. This by itself is pretty serious! Behavioral examples abound everywhere.

In Q4 of 2019, if you tried to have a meeting using a Zoom technology platform (I speak from personal experience) no more than 10% of people even knew how to use their webcams so defaulted to using the audio portion while asking, “ why can’t we just have a conference call dial-in? ” A majority would now admit that a web meeting is a reasonable, effective facsimile to replace at least some in person, face-to-face meetings
In Q4 of 2019, 95% of companies operating in the US didn’t have a policy supporting employees working-from-home (WFH), and most didn’t embrace it as an alternative to “officing.” A mere four months later, 95% of businesses DO have practical experience supporting WFH and are much less afraid of it. Now you actually have big-time CEOs (Facebook, JP Morgan, etc.) who have publicly announced a planned pullback from using traditional office space. Does anyone doubt that working from home at least one day a week is going to be a lot more acceptable going forward?

Nothing like a pandemic to accelerate evolution and adaptation! I'll get to the meat of what I wanted to communicate—not even the pandemic and the social upheaval underway changes my core theme.

Remember the baseball movie “Moneyball” from a few years back with Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill? Taken from a non-fiction book by author Michael Lewis, the story is one that has always struck me as analogous to the Commercial Real Estate industry—in particular to the office sector. It's a true story (allowing for some dramatic license to take place, of course)—and the events described did happen.

In the story, Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics’ Major League Baseball team, with his back up against the wall, must find a solution to his challenges to have any chance for success. He puts a new model to work that is unproven, but he embraces it fully—he’s “all in.” Literally, no one believes in what he is doing—but he proves everyone wrong, and the Oakland Athletics enjoyed unprecedented success no one thought possible given the tools they had to work with. And--spoiler alert--they established a record-setting winning streak during the 2002 Major League Baseball season (20 straight wins!!) that still stands today, while eventually changing the belief system that had been in place for over 100 years.

Today, at least the following teams have adopted some, more or all of Billy’s model; the New York Mets, New York Yankees, San Diego Padres, St. Louis Cardinals, Boston Red Sox, Washington Nationals, Arizona Diamondbacks, Cleveland Indians, and the Toronto Blue Jays.

The linkages that struck me between baseball and commercial real estate were about how the decades-long way of doing things was overdue to challenge, and about how hard it was to actually bring meaningful change about. It took leadership, intestinal fortitude, and ultimately some proof before anyone was open to getting on board.

( as an aside, I love the story about how Steve Jobs reportedly pitched his board of directors on the idea of an” I-pad”; they asked for market confirmation of demand first to which he pointed out that no such product existed before so how could anyone “prove out demand”? Of course, the rest of the story is history due to Steve’s unshakeable commitment to what he believed in. And, yes, he had to browbeat his board into going along with his plan because they weren’t convinced .)

Back to our story… at the end of the 2001 season, our beleaguered GM is faced with replacing several of his best players. The Oakland “A”s budget is much smaller than other major league teams; by comparison to the NY Mets’ $125M annual player budget, Billy has about $44M in total to spend. He must rebuild his roster for the next season, and given this disparity, conventional wisdom says he shouldn’t expect to recruit and build a winning team.

He chances upon another team’s junior analyst who shows him a new model grounded in atypical analytics and data no one else cares about, but what Billy hears makes sense to him. He becomes deeply committed to putting this new paradigm to work, and it’s definitely not easy. No one thinks he is going to succeed. In fact, the status quo is either openly or quietly rooting against him.

They successfully develop a winning team—and in doing so fundamentally challenge the baseball institution’s legacy beliefs and tenets. “Success” for the Oakland “A”s challenges a way of life for an entire ecosystem of participants who aren’t thrilled about embracing change. Sound familiar?

And therein lies the strongest linkage to the Commercial Real Estate office industry—an industry unchallenged to re-evaluate its own core beliefs and tenets on display every day. Sure, the meteoric rise of WeWork caused some folks to wonder about where coworking fit in the scheme of things. With WeWork’s recent fall from grace, many feel like they can punt on worrying about that particular curiosity, at least for a while. It's fair to claim the sector and business model remain largely unchanged for the better part of the last 75+ years. Not unlike baseball, right? The CRE industry holds on tightly to ideas like:

Valuations are forward-facing revenue multiples based on predictable asset cash flows. Getting much harder to deliver—and will get even harder still
Cash flows, in turn, are predicated on long-term, credit enhanced lease contracts with corporate entities. Who can plan for the next 12 months, let alone for the next ten years?
98% of the “product” the industry sells to end-users is bespoke for that particular customer. What other industry creates that much friction in its procurement and use of a product?
When spaces turn over, they are gutted and rebuilt from the foundation up. Not very green, is it?
From inception to move-in, the current model/process takes at least six months. No one would ever confuse this with “streamlined” would they?

As for a “value-added” relationship between supplier and end-user of the product, there is literally no opportunity to develop one. The end user's expectations are simple; “don’t call me, I’ll call you if something breaks and you had better be responsive. By the way, even if you are responsive, it’s not going to create a “sticky” relationship between us as we can get what you offer from pretty much any other building owner on our shortlist, thank you, very much.”

Sure, some new amenities are important now for a building to make it to the end user's shortlist, but the basic model is unchanged. Why is this?

I’ve been vocal about what I consider to be a structural disconnect in the Commercial Real Estate Industry vertical. That crippling disconnect is that the core customer for the office asset owner is the capital markets (other investors and lenders) and not the end-user of its office space product. This relationship (inconceivable in any other industry vertical from consumer products to technology to telecommunications to manufacturing et al.) is at the heart of what is stultifying any possibility for model change and innovation.

Consider the implications here; one must conclude that requirements for product innovation are driven by “asks” from investors and lenders, and not “asks” from the end-users of the product. How can innovation take place when the core customer—in this case, the capital markets—only wants investment yields, returns, and the risk adequately managed? As long as those are within range, where is the incentive to push for innovation in the business model or the product?

How does this link back to our heroes in the movie? In the film, Billy Beane must abandon the conventional approach to compensate for a resource disadvantage, and to do more with less. In Billy’s case, it meant mining new data to help develop a new strategy. But, to be honest, he only wanted to be competitive with others who had 300% more to spend—he didn’t really expect to outperform others with so much more horsepower. His focus had to shift away from recruiting expensive “star players” to achieving certain other statistical milestones that would lead them to more wins—an entirely different philosophy.

But he seriously over-achieved. Not only did the new model reduce disadvantage, but based on their success, the Boston Red Sox embraced this new model and won the World Series two years later. This would forever change how things were going to be done going forward. It was transformative —and there was no going back once that happened, only forward.

Am I the only one who has wondered why a building’s ownership spends $20M on fixing up an asset lobby—a traditional, broadly accepted asset management tactic--when that decision/capital allocation did absolutely nothing for the end-user of the product? It looks a lot like wealthy baseball team owners spending huge sums on prestige players instead of investing money where it actually counts, to build a winning game plan capable of supercharging returns. Upgrading the asset’s lobby resonates with capital and other investors, but does absolutely nothing for the businesses who occupy the asset and who, regardless of what that particular company actually does, share a singular objective; that is, to be more successful businesses .

Let me refer you back to the things the industry holds as tenets on the preceding page. Do ANY of those tenets help the end-user (the “tenant”) of the office space product be a more successful business? I don’t think so—and that lack of a compelling value proposition between the traditional supply-side and the end-user makes things more than overdue for re-engineering.

Helping the end-users of an office asset’s office space product become more successful businesses is not currently what asset owners are skilled at—or rewarded for, YET. Nonetheless, this is where ownership’s investment dollars need to go—but, like baseball, they don’t think that way yet. Someone needs to prove to them that thinking differently produces the returns/results they want—and that requires a Billy Beane going out on a limb because they believe making their end-users just that little bit more successful is the magic that helps them to deliver the returns/yields they aspire to produce.

As we have said, the commercial real estate industry’s office sector has remained relatively unchanged for the better part of 75+ years. That’s just fine if companies continue to lock in long-term credit leases, get better at planning for 5+ years, and continue to insist that people are only productive when coming into an office. However, I don’t believe any of these things , and neither should you.

Baseball is an institution, and in the last few years works very differently than it did for the first 100 years. Will the commercial real estate industry follow a similar trajectory?

In the coming writings, I will dissect some of this. I will hold our industry up to the light looking at the unmet demands from the end-user and the untapped potential for the supply-side.

In my opinion, we can keep this conversation going for a while to come. More from your humble narrator soon.

Langdon Featured Panelist for Investor Symposium

Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:31:23 GMT

Jeffrey Langdon was invited to speak at an exclusive investor symposium to talk about the shifting demands of the office end-user towads variable and work-from-home (WFH) solutions.

The end user is moving at a rapid pace towards a need for more variable space solutions. Varaible space allows for lowered capital intensity, streamlined process and an increase in end-user focused services that benefit both the business and personal needs of the occupants.

Coworking operators are filling the variable need unmet by fixed space in traditional office leases at an unprecedented rate. With 1.2 million people using coworking in the U.S., we see the fast expansion and emergence of national players like WeWork and Industrious among others growing their footprints to accommodate over 7 million new seats worldwide. Even with the ever-present news of another opening and lease signing, this product will occupy less than 10% of the average office market across the U.S.

If owners aren’t already thinking about adding more variable products, they need to start figuring out how to stay relevant as end-user’s demands continue to shift.

Fresh funds, acquisition by Industrious give coworking a lift

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Reuters News Quotes AOR Founder Jeffrey Langdon

Reuters News | 28-Mar-2017 11:00:00 AM

By Herbert Lash

NEW YORK, March 28 (Reuters) - Industrious, the second-biggest U.S. coworking firm by number of locations, said on Tuesday it acquired a search website for spare office space and raised $25 million in fresh funds as investors bet the shared-office industry grows and goes mainstream.

The announcement comes a week after industry leader WeWork Cos Inc raised $300 million from Japan's SoftBank Group Corp 9984.T , pushing money raised by the coworking behemoth to about $2 billion. The SoftBank funds are the first installment of what media reports suggest will be a multi-billion dollar funding round. ( Full Story )

Demand for coworking sites is on the rise and investors are taking notice as the pace of capital raising in the shared work space sector quickens, said Jamie Hodari, co-founder and chief executive of Industrious, based in Brooklyn, New York.

The firm raised $37 million in September, and is likely to raise more capital in October, Hodari said in an interview.

Private equity firm Riverwood Capital led this round and the previous round of investments.

Terms of Industrious' acquisition of PivotDesk, which allows companies to advertise their excess space, were not disclosed.

A year ago it was hard to get a meeting with investors but now someone from private equity or venture capital reaches out almost daily to inquire about the industry, Hodari said.

"Every company in this space is either finishing a round or in the beginning stages of another round" of fundraising, he said. "We're on the cusp of the dollar amounts getting much larger in our industry."

Hodari is aware of eight companies, which he declined to name, that are seeking to raise between $20 million to $40 million each.

Industrious operates 12 locations across 11 U.S. cities and expects to increase its footprint to 33 sites in 25 cities by year's end, he said.

Technology, cultural changes and connectivity have combined to unlock the workplace from the traditional office, according to Adaptive Office Resources (AOR) in Rancho Santa Fe, California.

The ease of working off-site will reduce in the next decade the need for a traditional office to about 55 percent of space dedicated to office usage from more than 95 percent in the 2000s, the commercial real estate consultancy predicts.

Driving this change is demand for offices that can grow or shrink as corporate needs evolve.

"You have a supply side that continues to try to promote a product that for the most part is becoming more archaic and obsolete," said Jeffrey Langdon, managing director of AOR.

"Commercial real estate has been slow to innovate and is in denial of an industry-wide shift in a generational turnover in the office that few outside of coworking have addressed," Langdon said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

(Reporting by Herbert Lash; Editing by Bernard Orr)

Improving Cap Value and Cash Flow for 15MSF Client

Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:38:47 GMT

Client Testimonial | For a recent 15 MSF office client we were able to significantly increase both cap value and cash flow in a single calendar year.

For a recent 15 MSF office client we were able to significantly increase both cap value and cash flow in a single calendar year.

Emphasis on customer retention and operating yeild enhancement

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Client Testimonial | A privately held, 40 MSF owner/operator of class A+ assets had maximized its potential as an "outstanding operator". Growth was only going to be derived from changing the paradigm.

By adding capabilities to increase their insight into the needs of the actual end-user of their product (the occupier) they were able to incorporate new knowledge about demand-side needs and develop a more compelling supply-side offering. They delivered their own branded "on-demand" offering in addition to their conventional long-term space.

Today, they are a two-product company with the traditional, custom office option as well as a move-in ready product that does not require tenant improvements or other customization. The current ratio is about 5 parts "traditional" and 1 part "other" and they can shift this allocation around depending on product demand.

These, and other service level changes enabled them to improve the customer experience resulting in achieving the highest customer satisfaction ratings they have ever enjoyed. Over a two-year period, net absorption increased by over 2M SF adding over $1B in new capitalized portfolio value.