Fact or Fake: Does Open Space really boost office productivity?

Vargas offers a diagnosis of the current landscape and highlights the main misconceptions tied to the model:

“Open space emerged as a response to rigid hierarchical structures and gained traction with the promise of collaboration, flexibility, and spatial efficiency. The problem is when it stops being a strategic choice and starts being applied automatically, without reading the company culture, activities, and profile. Roles that require high concentration, confidentiality, or precision — such as legal, finance, technology in critical phases, technical design, or data analysis — tend to suffer in fully open environments.”

Comeli reinforces the point by bringing attention to productivity and concentration in certain contexts:

“Open space is a place for circulation, informality, and quick interaction. But when someone needs to stop, think, and build something carefully, the open environment starts to get in the way. This impacts productivity, quality, and delivery deadlines.

In practice, what we see is people running away from open space: moving to quieter areas or even occupying meeting rooms all day just to be able to work. This shows that for certain profiles and more complex activities, open space does not support productivity. It’s not just personal preference — it’s about the fit between environment, type of work, and the employee’s profile.”

On the other hand, the professor points out that when properly applied, the model creates a more relaxed and less rigid atmosphere, making interaction and integration easier:

“There are more structured layouts and others that are completely flexible, where people choose where to sit depending on the work they need to do at that moment. If a project comes up with another area, the team reorganizes, sits together, and solves it. In addition, reducing visual barriers greatly supports quick and informal interactions, which often solve problems without turning into long meetings.”

Vargas emphasizes that the issue is not the concept itself, but the lack of counterbalances:

“The problem lies in the absence of complementary spaces. Open space without enclosed rooms, quiet areas, individual booths, or refuge spaces creates fatigue and a drop in productivity. This requires mapping tasks, concentration time, moments of exchange, and breaks.”

For Comeli, open space remains relevant — but loses its absolute dominance:

“It won’t disappear, but it stops being the center. The workplace becomes less about ‘everyone together all the time’ and more about ‘when it makes sense for everyone to be together.’”

Vargas concludes:

“It will be less dominant and more qualified, integrated with support spaces and designed for meetings, collaboration, and culture — not as a universal solution for all activities.”