For decades, your office has been treated as a finished object.
A company would brief a designer. The fit-out would be planned. Walls, workstations, meeting rooms, kitchens, breakout spaces and services would be installed. People would move in. And from that moment, the workplace would largely be expected to function as designed – for the next 5 to 10 years.
But organisations no longer work that way.
Teams change. Work patterns change. Technology changes. Expectations change. Cultures change. A business can routinely grow, contract, restructure, or decentralise – often in the same year. No one plans beyond one year let alone 5 or 10 years.
Hybrid work has made this even more visible. The same workplace may need to support focused work, collaboration, confidential calls, client meetings, learning, social connection and deep creative thinking, all within the same day.
Yet most offices are still designed as if work is predictable and unchanging – a factory.
That is the contradiction we need to solve.
The future office is not finished on the day people move in. That is the day it starts learning.
The future office is not finished on the day people move in.
The future office is not finished on the day people move in.
Yet most offices are still designed as if work is predictable and unchanging – a factory.
That is the contradiction we need to solve.
The future office is not finished on the day people move in. That is the day it starts learning.
From static design to living systems
When I think about the office as a living system, I do not mean a building filled with gimmicks, screens or novelty rainbow lighting. I mean a workspace that can understand how people actually use space, respond intelligently, and continue improving over time.
A living office is not simply automated. Dare I say, it’s aware.
It can sense patterns of people’s behaviour. It can identify where they gather, where they struggle, where they avoid, where energy is wasted, where collaboration is happening naturally, and where the physical environment is getting in the way or enabling performance and creativity.
This distinction matters.
A lot of what has historically been called “automation” or “smart” is just a different type of switch.
Instead of flicking a light switch, someone pushes a button. Instead of manually adjusting a system, someone says, “Hey Google, turn this on.”
That may be convenient, but it is not true automation. It is still a person issuing instructions to a passive system – people still need to think of what they want and issue an instruction to make a change – that’s not smart, that’s reactive.
A living system is different. It has enough awareness to make sensible predictions and decisions without constantly asking people to intervene.
It understands that a meeting room with eight people in it behaves differently from the same room with two people in it. It understands that a space used for video calls has different acoustic needs from a space used for group brainstorming. It understands that if people keep walking around with phones to their ears, the office probably does not have enough appropriate places for private calls. It understands that if people are repeatedly gathering in an informal area for extended conversations, that behaviour may be telling us something about where collaboration wants to happen.
The important point is not the technology itself. The important point is the behaviour the technology reveals.
The lesson from building an active home
My thinking on this began long before LaunchPOD started talking about Workspace Intelligence or the Coworking Spaces we created at LaunchPAD.
Years ago, when I built my own house, I wanted to explore what would happen if a home was designed around the behaviour of the people living inside it. The project included around seven kilometres of wiring. That sounds excessive if the goal is simply to replace light switches. But that was never the goal.
The goal was to create a house that could understand how our family moved through the space.
For example, the system could respond differently depending on the time of day or night. Passageways could be lit at different brightness levels to minimise disruption to others. If someone came down the staircase at night, the house could predict the likely path and turn on the right lights ahead of them, rather than lighting the entire house unnecessarily.
It wasn’t about showing off technology. It was about making the house behave in a way that felt natural – it was smart because it understood people.
To do that, I had to think deeply about how my family actually lived in the space. Who moved where? At what time? What would they likely do next? What should the house do without being asked? What should it avoid doing? When should it prioritise comfort, safety, energy efficiency or minimal disruption?
That experience made something very clear to me: true automation is impossible without understanding behaviour the of people who will use the space.
If you do not understand the people using the space, all you are doing is installing features – or worse replacing switches with push buttons.
Why most automation fails
Most building automation fails because it begins with systems, not people.
In housing, automation has often been sold as a feature. A builder installs a system so they can say the house includes automation. But in many cases, the result is simply ‘push buttons’ instead of switches. There may be lighting scenes or preset functions, but those scenes are rarely based on a deep understanding of the people who will live there.
The same problem exists in offices.
Lighting, air conditioning, security, access control, meeting room booking and digital signage are often treated as separate systems. Each may work perfectly well in isolation, but they are not usually designed to behave as one coordinated environment.
Why most automation fails
Most building automation fails because it begins with systems, not people.
In housing, automation has often been sold as a feature. A builder installs a system so they can say the house includes automation. But in many cases, the result is simply ‘push buttons’ instead of switches. There may be lighting scenes or preset functions, but those scenes are rarely based on a deep understanding of the people who will live there.
The same problem exists in offices.
Lighting, air conditioning, security, access control, meeting room booking and digital signage are often treated as separate systems. Each may work perfectly well in isolation, but they are not usually designed to behave as one coordinated environment.
In many commercial buildings, the HVAC system does not really understand the lighting system. The lighting system does not understand meeting behaviour. The room booking system does not understand whether the room is actually occupied. The security system may know who entered the building, but that knowledge is rarely connected to the wider experience of the workplace.
The result is a building full of independent systems, each making narrow decisions.
That is not intelligence – it’s not even smart.
In one of our LaunchPAD Coworking Spaces, ‘Revolve’, automation had clearly been installed for a previous tenant. There were timers and buttons that extended lighting for certain periods. But we didn’t know how the system had been programmed, or why it had been programmed that way, it became almost useless. Even worse, it was difficult to determine after the fact what had been implemented at all.
This is a common problem. Automation is embedded into systems, but the intent behind it is not visible, flexible or easy to adapt.
The building may be technically automated, but it is not learning. It’s definitely not smart.
What we learned at LaunchPAD
Before LaunchPOD, we designed, built and operated Coworking Spaces in Melbourne. Each LaunchPAD space was unique and an opportunity to test some of these ideas in our own environment.
We got much closer to a living building than most workplaces I have experienced, not because the building was perfect, but because we started connecting systems around practical behaviours.
Security is one example.
When the alarm was enabled, the main lights would switch off, but perimeter lighting would come on temporarily so people could safely find their way out. If a door trigger occurred while the alarm was active, perimeter lights would immediately come on as a warning before a full alarm sequence escalated. The system was not simply waiting for a binary event. It was responding in stages, based on what was likely happening.
The air conditioning system gave us another important lesson.
The building had multiple air conditioning systems, and at one stage they were effectively fighting each other. One system would heat, causing a nearby area to become too warm. Another system would respond by cooling. That cooling would then affect another zone, which would begin heating. The systems were technically functioning, but collectively they were wasting energy and a poor experience for our members.
So, we started making the separate AC units work more like a single entity with an overall objective.
We averaged temperatures across zones. We used ceiling fans to push warm air down when heat collected at higher levels. We considered outside temperature and the predicted weather for the day. If it was a cool morning but forecast to become warmer, the system did not need to aggressively heat the building early, only to cool it again later.
We called it LaunchPAD Weather.
A system in which you could vote on whether you were cold or hot. The building would corollate votes and adjust the set points in zones.
We also built in a physiology model, recognising that when people first arrived in space, they would be warm, but then over the next few hours, cool down as they sat still. The pattern would repeat after lunch, when our members returned with their lunch. Each cycle the HVAC set points would bias toward slightly cooling or warming.
These are simple examples, but they show the principle.
A building becomes more intelligent when it has context.
It should not make decisions from a single input. It should understand time of day, occupancy, predicted conditions, actual behaviour and the desired outcome.
The limits of manual feedback
One of the strongest lessons from these experiments is that systems should not depend too heavily on people pushing buttons.
People are busy. They forget. They work around systems. They tolerate discomfort. They complain later. They do not reliably tell a building what they need in the moment.
That does not mean human input has no value. It does. But if a system relies on people to constantly tell it what to do, it is not really autonomous.
In an office, people may say they need more meeting rooms, when the real issue is that existing rooms are too large, poorly located or constantly booked but not actually used. They may say the office feels noisy, when the deeper issue is that phone calls are happening in open areas because there are not enough acoustic spaces nearby. They may say they want more collaboration space, when behavioural data shows collaboration is already happening, just not in the spaces originally designed for it.
This is why Workspace Intelligence matters.
It gives leaders a clearer view of what is actually happening, not just what people think is happening.
A living office needs both: passive behavioural insight and active human understanding.
Sensors can reveal patterns. Interviews and observation can explain meaning. Together, they create a much better foundation for decisions.
Why the construction industry struggles with living buildings
The construction industry is very good at delivering fixed outcomes.
It is designed around scope, drawings, approvals, trades, programs, budgets and completion dates. That structure is necessary. Buildings need to be safe, compliant and buildable. Projects need discipline.
But a living workplace requires a different capability.
The construction process typically ends just as the learning should begin.
A builder may deliver exactly what was documented. A services contractor may install systems exactly as specified. A designer may create a beautiful and functional workplace based on the best available brief. But once people move in, the assumptions begin to meet reality.
This is where the current construction industry model fails.
The industry is not set up to maintain a long-term relationship with how people use the space. – instead it dehumanises them with names like Occupiers and Tenants. That’s not collaborative or inclusive – it’s avoidance.
It does not routinely return to ask: Are the rooms still the right size? Are new teams using the space as expected? Are people avoiding certain areas? Are acoustic issues emerging? Has hybrid work changed attendance patterns? Are business objectives different now? Is the workplace still aligned with the organisation?
In many cases, the building is handed over, and the intelligence is lost.
The other problem is that many decisions are made before anyone has occupied the space. Systems are programmed based on assumptions. Furniture settings are fixed based on expected headcount. Meeting rooms are sized based on a theoretical ratio. HVAC settings are configured around general standards rather than lived experience.
Some assumptions may be right. Many will not be. And even the right assumptions may become wrong over time.
A living office requires an ongoing relationship, not a one-off project.
What a living office could feel like
If you walked into a living office, you might not notice the technology first.
That would be the point.
You would notice that the building feels easier to use.
Digital signage may guide a visitor to the right meeting room. A meeting space may adjust lighting when a presentation begins. Air conditioning may respond to the number of people in the room, the outside temperature and the likely heat load. A busy collaboration area may be supported with better furniture because the organisation has learned that people naturally gather there. Cleaning may be triggered by actual use of kitchens, bathrooms or shared spaces, rather than a fixed schedule alone.
If the system recognises someone, it could personalise their experience. That might mean helping them find their meeting, showing relevant information, identifying available work settings, or supporting accessibility and comfort preferences.
In a larger workplace, the system could help people find available seating in a cafeteria or collaboration area. If a group of six people is looking for a place to sit, the office should be able to identify where six seats are available together. That saves time, reduces friction and improves the everyday experience of being at work.
At a deeper level, the office could help leaders make better decisions.
If ten people a day are taking calls in the same open area, maybe that is not a behavioural problem. Maybe it is a design signal. If people are leaving bags and laptops at desks but spending most of their time elsewhere, the organisation may need to understand ghost occupancy before making decisions about desk numbers. If collaboration is repeatedly happening in circulation areas, maybe the workplace needs to support that behaviour instead of forcing it into formal rooms.
A living office does not simply control the environment.
It teaches us how the organisation works.
A living office does not simply control the environment. It teaches us how the organisation works.
A living office does not simply control the environment. It teaches us how the organisation works.
If ten people a day are taking calls in the same open area, maybe that is not a behavioural problem. Maybe it is a design signal. If people are leaving bags and laptops at desks but spending most of their time elsewhere, the organisation may need to understand ghost occupancy before making decisions about desk numbers. If collaboration is repeatedly happening in circulation areas, maybe the workplace needs to support that behaviour instead of forcing it into formal rooms.
A living office does not simply control the environment.
It teaches us how the organisation works.
The office has to earn the commute
The reason this matters is simple: people’s expectations have changed.
Outside work, almost every part of life has become more personalised, responsive and convenient. People can choose what they watch, when they watch it. They can order almost any food and have it delivered quickly. They can customise services, environments, products and experiences around their preferences.
Then they come to the office and are often expected to adapt themselves to a static environment designed months or years earlier.
That gap is becoming harder to ignore.
If organisations want people to come into the office, the office has to earn the commute. It needs to offer something better than a desk and a policy. It needs to support connection, creativity, focus, learning, culture and performance in ways that are difficult to achieve at home.
The office has to earn the commute
The reason this matters is simple: people’s expectations have changed.
Outside work, almost every part of life has become more personalised, responsive and convenient. People can choose what they watch, when they watch it. They can order almost any food and have it delivered quickly. They can customise services, environments, products and experiences around their preferences.
Then they come to the office and are often expected to adapt themselves to a static environment designed months or years earlier.
That gap is becoming harder to ignore.
If organisations want people to come into the office, the office has to earn the commute. It needs to offer something better than a desk and a policy. It needs to support connection, creativity, focus, learning, culture and performance in ways that are difficult to achieve at home.
This does not mean every workplace needs to become over-engineered or hyper-personalised. It means the workplace needs to become more responsive to what people and organisations actually need.
Business leaders increasingly understand that people often do their best creative and collaborative work together. Face-to-face interaction still matters. Culture still matters. Trust, energy and ideas still grow through human contact.
But asking people to return to an office that does not support them is not enough.
The future office has to be worth being in.
If organisations want people to come into the office, the office has to earn the commute.
This does not mean every workplace needs to become over-engineered or hyper-personalised. It means the workplace needs to become more responsive to what people and organisations actually need.
Business leaders increasingly understand that people often do their best creative and collaborative work together. Face-to-face interaction still matters. Culture still matters. Trust, energy and ideas still grow through human contact.
But asking people to return to an office that does not support them is not enough.
The future office has to be worth being in.
If organisations want people to come into the office, the office has to earn the commute.
Workspace Intelligence as the missing capability
Workspace Intelligence is the capability that makes the living office possible.
It connects the physical environment with behavioural insight and continuous improvement. It helps organisations understand not just how much space they have, but how well that space supports the work they are trying to do.
It moves workplace strategy beyond one-off design decisions.
Instead of asking, “How many desks do we need?” we can ask, “What behaviours does this organisation need to support?”
Instead of asking, “How many meeting rooms should we build?” we can ask, “Where are conversations actually happening, and what type of settings would make them more effective?”
Instead of asking, “Is the office full?” we can ask, “Is the office helping people do better work?”
That shift is important.
A workplace is not successful because it is occupied. It is successful because it improves the performance, creativity, comfort and connection of the people inside it.
This is also where modular and adaptable environments become powerful. If the workplace is going to keep learning, the physical environment must be capable of changing. Fixed construction alone is often too slow, too expensive and too permanent for the pace of organisational change.
Living systems need adaptable structures.
Pods, rooms, furniture settings, acoustic treatments, digital tools, behavioural data and human feedback all become part of the same ongoing system. The office can be adjusted as needs change, rather than waiting for the next major lease event or fit-out cycle.
The future office starts learning about you on day one
The office is no longer a fixed place.
It is part of the Workspace System of the organisation. It shapes how people meet, focus, share ideas, recover energy, build trust and create value. If it remains static while the organisation changes around it, it will slowly become misaligned.
That misalignment is expensive. It shows up as wasted space, poor utilisation, frustrated teams, unnecessary construction, underused rooms, noise problems, energy waste and weaker reasons for people to come together.
The alternative is a workplace that learns.
A workplace that senses behaviour. A workplace that recognises patterns. A workplace that adapts services and settings. A workplace that gives leaders evidence. A workplace that can be improved continuously, not redesigned from scratch every few years.
The future office starts learning about you on day one
The office is no longer a fixed place.
It is part of the Workspace System of the organisation. It shapes how people meet, focus, share ideas, recover energy, build trust and create value. If it remains static while the organisation changes around it, it will slowly become misaligned.
That misalignment is expensive. It shows up as wasted space, poor utilisation, frustrated teams, unnecessary construction, underused rooms, noise problems, energy waste and weaker reasons for people to come together.
The alternative is a workplace that learns.
A workplace that senses behaviour. A workplace that recognises patterns. A workplace that adapts services and settings. A workplace that gives leaders evidence. A workplace that can be improved continuously, not redesigned from scratch every few years.
That is what we mean by a living system.
It is not about technology replacing human judgement. It is about giving human judgement better evidence. It is about helping leaders see what they could not see before, so they can create workplaces that are more responsive, more efficient and more human.
For me, this idea began with a house wired to understand how a family lived. It continued through our own experiments at LaunchPAD, where we saw how connected systems could improve comfort, safety and energy use. Today, the opportunity is much bigger.
The modern office can become a living system for the organisation itself.
Not finished.
Not fixed.
Always learning.
Always adapting.
Always becoming more useful to the people it exists to support.
Jeremy Ellis
Jeremy Ellis is a serial entrepreneur, technologist and founder of the Launch Group of companies. From designing safety systems for tunnels and railways, to engineering sentient homes, Jeremy bravely explores the future of work through a technology lens.
This article was transcribed from an interview, summarised and expanded by Mr Green, LaunchPOD’s Workspace Intelligence AI agent. The article was edited and published by the team at LaunchPOD.
