Scaling an SME? Your workspace may be your next big decision

Office design has evolved beyond mere looks and size as companies reassess their workspaces for hybrid work, talent battles, and global centers. During a conversation with The Economic Times Digital, Aditya B. Yamsanwar, Director of Team One Architects (TOA), spoke about his over 25 years of experience in commercial environment design and elaborated on how the modern workplace serves as a strategic business asset. He explains how businesses in various industries leverage their spaces to achieve tangible results in areas like culture, collaboration, productivity, retention, and brand image, while also highlighting the common and expensive errors that both SMEs and established companies make in their office designs. Edited excerpts.

Economic Times (ET): You've spent over 25 years designing commercial environments. What is the single biggest shift you've seen in how organisations think about space today versus when you started?
Aditya B. Yamsanwar (AY): In 2001, when we started, office spaces were largely viewed as an overhead, fixed real estate. You signed a lease for space and filled it with desks. Productivity and growth were measured in square feet per person, headcount, where in design was applied as a decorative function as an afterthought, once the real decisions were made.


We have come a long way from cabin sizes, finish, and hierarchy–with the single biggest shift being the rise of “Work from Anywhere.” This has compelled the Board andCXOs to now evaluate the function of the workspace for business. Before we discuss what the office should look like, we ascertain its objective – to attract and retain talent, build the culture and create a brand touch point.

The biggest shift is not aesthetic; it is positional. Offices are not limited to accommodating teams to an agenda for CEO and CHROs. The floor plate is now read the way a balance sheet is, as something that either compounds value or quietly erodes it.

ET: At what point did architecture stop being about "buildings" and start becoming a strategic business tool? What triggered that shift in your experience?
AY: Change is triggered when business potential turns kinetic. For us, it happened when enterprises began to experience rapid cycles of growth, talent pressure, and organisational adaptation. Executives realized the impact of real estate and offices as brand asset. It was this knowledge backed by the growing pressure on capital efficiency that moved companies to explore more deeply beyond what they were building to what they were building for.

Another push to this trajectory was the rise of outsourced businesses, i.e.; Global Capability Centre model in India. GCCs were not simply building for headcount but for mission-critical work and focused-function, par with global boards. That meant the building itself had to signal capability: security, resilience, talent experience, sustainability credentials, all visible the moment a visitor walked in.

That's when design stopped answering 'how many seats fit here' and started answering 'will this space help us win the next mandate, retain that VP, or pass that global audit.' The brief moved from floor plates to business outcomes.

ET: Workplaces today are designed around behaviour rather than hierarchy. What does that actually look like in practice, and where do most companies get it wrong?
AY: In practice, it comes down to designing around work as it’s actually carried out rather than a paper-based hierarchy. You are likely to see less cabin-centric layout and more space for intense focus, short-burst meetings, confidential conversations, informal interactions, and collaborative teamwork. The smartest employers will also design for the many modes of work an individual typically engages with throughout the day, ensuring movement between these modes is supported rather than rigid. Where organisations fail is by copying the superficial look without doing the due diligence, and mistaking ‘open plan’ for ‘efficient space’. They knock down walls, create breakout areas and call it culture. In fact, designing with behavioural principles at the forefront is not about eliminating walls.

ET: In a hybrid-first world, what are companies still misunderstanding about the role of physical offices? Are we overestimating or underestimating their importance?
AY: We need to first understand what the office space is today solving for us, including talent, attendance, collaboration, innovation and then ascertain for ourselves. If anything, we are underestimating the impact offices have and it is primarily because of the reasons historically assigned to it.

A well-designed office isn't competing with home for quiet or space, but for culture, connection, trust, mentorship, and those critical moments of alignment that are really difficult to recreate in a virtual. This encompasses the kind of high-bandwidth collaboration that solves ambiguous problems faster in person.

Offices are no longer just places people go to work. They are spaces where people connect, collaborate and build culture. Organisations that overlook this shift risk overspending on real estate while underinvesting in the spaces that actually bring people together

ET: How do you quantify the impact of good design on productivity, culture, or business performance, especially when speaking to CXOs who may see it as a cost centre?
AY: At TOA, we stropped quantifying office space in language meant for designers and started to translate it in the CXO lingo. Business leaders care about metrics, attrition rate, absenteeism, real-estate cost per employee, energy spend, and engagement scores pre- and post-move.

Good design should be able to track these metrics, show measurable movement, and connect workplace decisions to commercial outcomes, not just aesthetics or mood boards.

Culture seems intangible, but its signals can be quantified. If people are more conscious about the use of the office, teamwork is more natural, onboarding happens quicker, and clients see the space as credible and forward-thinking, design has already influenced performance. Quality design may not be the most economical element when viewed on Day One, but bad design will cost more money down the line.

ET: Having worked across IT, BFSI, pharma, logistics, and hospitality, what are the most surprising cross-industry insights about how people interact with space?
AY: The initial perception is that human needs are more consistent than sectors assume. Whether in any industry, human beings are attracted to spaces that provide clarity, comfort, lighting, intuitive flow, and control. While the languages of space may differ by industry, the behavioural drives remain surprisingly alike.

For example, a BFSI floor needs formality and controlled client zones. A tech team wants speed and informality. Pharma would need strict segregation because of compliance. Logistics would need materials that survive heavy daily wear and tear. Hospitality has taught corporate design a lot about how a reception makes someone feel before a meeting even starts.

Secondly, it is because agile workspaces do not necessarily have to be formal workspaces. Indeed, some of the best workspaces are those which minimize friction, facilitate collaboration, and allow for focused work while not being overly designed for such an experience. It could be a corporate office, logistics facility, or a hospitality environment- people relate well to legible, responsive, and intentional spaces.

ET: For small and growing businesses, workspace design is often an afterthought. At what stage should they start taking it seriously, and why does getting it right early matter?
AY: Businesses should start taking workspace design seriously much earlier than most do. This should ideally happen when companies begin hiring for larger teams and when the workplace starts influencing workflow, culture, and how the client views the company. Once that starts happening, space isn't just a backdrop anymore. It starts shaping the whole organisational behaviour.

Getting details correct from the outset becomes increasingly important because minor issues in the design of the space have a way of building up over time. Then making corrections to any existing bad practices becomes more challenging and expensive than simply planning for growth in the first place. Early-stage businesses don't need a fancy office. They need a smart one. Something simple and flexible that can grow with the team will always beat a flashy fit-out that looks great on day one but doesn't hold up a year later.

ET: What are the most common mistakes startups and SMEs make when designing their workspaces, and how can these impact their growth, culture, or efficiency over time?
AY: The most frequent error made by companies is to see office design as a piece of furniture and theme choice rather than a culture choice. Small businesses pay attention to finishes and aesthetic features or status symbols but fail to consider elements such as planning, acoustics, flexibility, storage, and future growth.

The next error made in offices is that of designing based on today’s needs only. Companies that experience growth need to include adaptability in their design from the very beginning; otherwise, every period of growth will be increasingly disruptive and costly. In time, all these decisions will have an impact on speed, productivity, cooperation, and quality of decision-making.

ET: How are data, sensors, and workplace analytics changing the way you approach design decisions today? Is intuition being replaced by intelligence?
AY: Data, sensors, and analytics have influenced how the starting point for a design brief is formed and how decisions are made. Earlier, our presentations and suggestions used to consider assumptions and stakeholder interviews, but they have moved to numbers and statistics, and trends.

This includes real occupancy rates–which meeting rooms sit empty, the zones are overcrowded during lunch, how desk utilization translates from blueprint to floor. That data kills a lot of expensive guesswork before it happens.

Data tells you what is happening; it rarely tells you why, or what people will need next as their ways of working evolve. Our job is increasingly to read the data and then apply 25 years of pattern recognition to interpret it correctly. Intelligence without intuition gives you a very well-measured version of the wrong answer.