*Sensor under desk (side view). Photo by Edward Moix, SenzoLive*

How can we use our office space more efficiently? This is one of the key questions asked in our industry and one of the hardest to answer. The thin balance between providing sufficient space, to enabling productivity and growth, and wasting real estate has contributed to the creation of more sophisticated ways to help companies measuring and improving their space utilization.

Despite the growing number of companies and devices in the market offering space utilization studies, they all fit in one of these two categories of data collection: manual counting or occupancy sensors. The information you will get will lead you to a decision that will potentially change your workplace, hence why it is key to address the fundamental differences between these two methods to justify their suitability for your needs.

Accuracy and Reliability

Addressing the statistical accuracy should be your first priority. The key difference between sensors and manual counts is the type of data obtained: continuous and discrete, respectively.

Manual counts are conducted by personnel, external or internal to the organization, doing timely walkthroughs around the office counting (usually helped by mobile apps or spreadsheets) the number of occupants in all the spaces agreed during the planning phase. These observers also can take additional notes about the different activities people are doing at the time of the observation, for instance: having a phone call, having a meeting and working at the desk. The walkthroughs happen every hour during the working journey (i.e. 9 am to 6 pm).

Occupancy sensors are usually installed in different spaces and work settings, such as under desks, chairs or ceiling. They record data continuously and some of their algorithms even filter false recordings such as cleaning activities done by the facilities personnel. The deployment of sensors should also be accompanied by an observational study to identify general trends in the working patterns.