Supply is fixed at delivery; demand never is. Headcount shifts, teams reorganise, activity profiles evolve, and the setting mix that matched demand at design gradually mismatches the organisation using it. This review re-computes the gap structure on a standing basis, catching mis-provision while the response is a reconfiguration rather than a relocation. It is how the workplace stays matched instead of aging into the next project's 'before' picture.
- Annually as standing review; event-triggered after reorganisations, growth steps or ratio revisions
- When the behaviour review, booking analysis or pulse converge on a setting-level failure
- Before any capital spend — the review distinguishes redistribution problems from supply problems
- Strategist or internal capability running the re-assessment
- FM and CRE as operational and portfolio owners
- Finance where findings carry cost consequences
- Community group validating setting-level interpretations
- Maintained supply model: the kit as delivered plus modifications
- Current demand evidence: occupancy, booking, pulse, updated headcount and structure
- Original gap structure and kit evidence chains
- Behaviour review and booking analysis findings for the same period
- Re-compute supply-demand per setting type using the same taxonomy and classifications (over-, under-, mis-provided, performing) — comparability across reviews is the longitudinal value.
- Test each setting against its evidence chain: does the kit's rationale still hold under current data?
- Integrate convergent evidence: squeeze maps, workarounds and pulse signals located to the same settings.
- Track gap trajectory across reviews: a setting drifting toward under-provided over three reviews is a forecast, not a surprise.
- Scale responses proportionately: norms and rules first, reconfiguration and redistribution second, kit revision third, capacity last.
- Route structural findings into governance: assumption breaches to the register, above-operational responses to leadership.
- Update the maintained models so the next review and every regeneration start from current truth.
- Slow-drift mis-provision: no single review alarming, the three-review trajectory unmistakable
- Demand evolution versus noise: transient turbulence versus a settled new profile
- Setting failures that are norm failures — don't let the spatial model absorb what the behaviour review owns
- Local gaps hiding under building-level balance
- Capital reflexes before redistribution options are exhausted
- Updated gap structure with trajectory against prior reviews
- Evidence-chain audit
- Proportionate response plan, layered
- Assumption register entries for structural movements
- Updated maintained supply model
Operational responses go to FM; kit revisions regenerate through the maintained models; structural findings feed Assumption Recalibration and, at threshold, the Workplace Strategy Refresh. The longitudinal record is the organisation's spatial memory.
The platform re-computes the gaps; judgement scales the response. Whether a drifting setting warrants a norm fix, a reconfiguration or a kit revision — and whether demand movement is evolution or noise — are proportionality calls.
- Reviewing only when complaints force it, losing the trajectory
- Changing taxonomy between reviews, destroying comparability
- Answering every gap with space when norms and redistribution were available
- Absorbing behavioural failures the spatial model didn't cause
- Skipping the model update, so regeneration produces fiction
A bank's second annual review caught collaboration settings drifting to over-provided while enclosed focus demand climbed — two acquired analytical teams shifting the activity profile. Three-layer response: quiet-protocol extension immediately, four collaboration bays reconfigured to focus enclosures within the quarter, a kit-revision entry in the register. Capital cost: FM's existing reconfiguration budget.