In an office, work does not happen only at the desk. It also happens in how space is used.

Every door, hallway and point of transition organizes not only movement, but the sequence of decisions. That is where a critical part of performance concentrates: in what happens between tasks, not within them.

In that context, waiting stops being a void. It becomes an operational condition. It defines rhythms and, in many cases, determines whether a process flows or fragments.

That is why office design does not only distribute space. It distributes time. And in that—invisible, yet constant—allocation, it is decided how much is interrupted, how much advances, and how much work is sustained throughout the day.

This is not intuition. The MIT “Allen Curve” shows that interaction between colleagues declines exponentially with distance and drops off sharply after the first 8 to 10 meters; in practice, the 2 to 5 meter range is where interaction occurs most frequently.

That proximity does not just facilitate work: it produces it, because sharing physical space measurably increases collaboration, even when capabilities and roles do not change. When that continuity breaks, the effect reverses. Experimental studies show that fragmented work can maintain pace, but at the cost of higher stress, time pressure and effort. At a larger scale, this effect becomes structural. In fact, only 13% of the global workforce combines high engagement with high workplace satisfaction, underscoring the role of the physical environment in performance.

Seen this way, the office stops being a container for work and becomes a system that organizes interaction, continuity and performance, where the real quality of work is defined. And that logic is becoming increasingly evident, as costs and efficiency gain weight, making occupancy more selective and demanding greater precision in how the office is organized.

According to SiiLA, between 2020 and 2025, the number of companies in offices grew at an annual rate close to 4%, while occupied space increased by just 1.7%. On a marginal basis, each new company went from absorbing around 2,000 square meters to roughly 500 square meters. This does not imply a contraction in office demand; it reflects a change in how offices are used compared to previous decades.

Translated into space, the issue is not whether offices are open or closed, but how distances and transitions are constructed between those who work together.

Environments that work do not eliminate separation: they calibrate it. They bring together those who need to interact frequently and create conditions for isolation when concentration is required, while avoiding abrupt breaks that disrupt work continuity.

Thus, an efficient office is not defined by its typology, but by its ability to align space with the nature of each task: constant interaction, deep work, or punctual coordination.

In that balance—between proximity and separation, between movement and permanence—design stops being form and becomes operation.

Under that logic, before leasing, buying, or designing an office, the central decision is not aesthetic or spatial, but operational: defining which tasks are performed and what type of space each requires. Without that alignment, the problem is not layout but cost, because space stops supporting work and begins to distort it, generating friction, interruptions, and square footage that does not produce value.

If space is a tool for work, choosing it without data is a cost. SiiLA SPOT directly connects property owners with companies through a commission-free marketplace, with advanced filters to find spaces based on how they are used, not just where they are located.

More information at siilaspot.com.mx.