Resource Workplace Benchmark · 2026 Study

Our most comprehensive workplace benchmark yet

We’ve run two peer benchmarking studies on tight timelines. This time we’re planning ahead and resourcing it fully — going deeper, with more specificity, across real estate cost, utilization, portfolio, workplace strategy, and operating model.

That specificity is the payoff for you: peer numbers defined tightly enough to line up against your own — so you can size cost, utilization, portfolio, and your operating model against real peers, and defend the calls to your leadership. We’re shaping it now with a small group whose input steers the cohort, the metrics, and the cuts.

A Resource Study Resource

What you get back — your position in the peer set, not a lone number

You
P25MedianP75

Illustrative. Every metric is delivered as your standing against a blinded peer set, on a normalized basis.

Built on our 2024 benchmark
62M
SF benchmarked
70+
metrics
14
peer companies
Why now

The hybrid debate is settled. Defending your cost, footprint, and operating model isn’t.

Each leader is being asked to defend a decision this planning cycle. The study maps the benchmark to the decision they actually own.

CFO / Finance

Is our cost base actually high?

Or is accounting treatment, revenue denominator, program scope, or peer selection distorting the story?

Head of Real Estate

Are our portfolio & seat calls defensible?

Back renewals, consolidations, utilization targets, and service levels with credible peer evidence.

CHRO / Talent

Do our office expectations match peers?

Compare required days, enforcement, seating, and experience investment against companies like yours.

COO / Workplace / CRE

Is our operating model right for our scale?

Benchmark internal FTE, outsourcing mix, function scope, and global model — not just the portfolio.

The work this builds on

Three years of getting peers to share — and making the numbers comparable

The 2026 study is not a cold start. It is the natural extension of a proven baseline and the harder lesson that followed it.

2024 The baseline 14 companies · 62M SF · 70+ metrics

A first-of-its-kind confidential peer benchmark across cost, utilization, workplace strategy, and operating model — built on warm introductions and light-lift participation.

Cohort: 14 leading Bay Area occupiers — major technology, consumer-internet, hardware, financial-services, and healthcare employers.

2025 The cost sprint 9 responding companies · CFO-facing

The lesson that defines the study: peer numbers only persuade leadership once the definitions behind them are normalized. Cost, capital projects, depreciation, and program spend all changed the story once scrubbed.

Cohort: 9 responding companies — technology, consumer-internet, and financial-services occupiers, in a CFO-facing cost comparison.

2026 The extension Targeting 30+ companies

A broader, sponsor-influenced benchmark with Finance-ready normalization built in from the start.

Seven decision modules, not one survey Required TCO component split, not a single number Sponsor-shaped peer cohort & priority cuts Methodology appendix & data dictionary
What you’ll learn

Seven modules. The decisions they settle.

Each module answers a question leadership is already asking — delivered on a normalized basis, with the decision implication and a confidence label attached to every finding.

Financial efficiency

Is our cost base actually high — or just measured differently?

See cost on a clean basis — budget/cash vs. accounting/P&L, as a share of revenue, and per employee, seat, capacity, and RSF — with a component mix that reveals whether the lease base, operations, depreciation, or program spend is the real driver.

You’ll see TCO as % of revenue (median & range) · component-mix waterfall · budget-vs-P&L bridge · 3-year trend

Example finding. A company that looked expensive on cost-to-revenue proved efficient per employee once capital projects and depreciation were normalized — the revenue-ratio paradox.

Utilization & hybrid work

Do our seat and attendance assumptions match reality?

Compare average, peak, off-peak, and Friday utilization — and see how much of the gap is the Tuesday–Thursday crunch versus how attendance is even counted across badge, WiFi, sensor, visitors, and contractors.

You’ll see average/peak/Friday ranges · site & region cuts · source-system quality · occupancy-spreading tactics

Example finding. One participant’s weekly utilization topped 100% — not because offices overflowed, but because of how unassigned seats were counted. Definitions decide the story.

Portfolio & space

Is the portfolio sized correctly?

Benchmark RSF and seats per person, density, capacity, the leased-vs-owned and metro-vs-suburban mix, and build cost per square foot — sized against peers at your scale, not the market average.

You’ll see cost/RSF vs. footprint scatter · density small multiples · portfolio-mix bars · build-cost ranges

Workplace strategy

Do our office expectations match credible peers?

Compare required days, enforcement, and assigned-vs-unassigned seating, with sharing ratios down to the department level — plus persona, neighborhood, and executive-office models.

You’ll see RTO policy & enforcement bars · sharing-ratio heatmap by department · persona/neighborhood adoption

CRE operating model

Is our team and operating model right for our scale?

Normalize internal FTE per 1,000 employees and per million SF, the internal-vs-outsourced mix, reporting line, and global model — once function scope is defined so the comparison is real.

You’ll see FTE-per-headcount dot plot · outsourcing-ratio bars · function-scope heatmap

Example finding. A ~40-person team running a largely outsourced model couldn’t tell if it was under-resourced until function scope — security, events, construction — was pinned down. Scope first, then size.

Talent / workplace integration

How do peers connect workplace and talent planning?

See how often Finance, HR, and CRE plan together, whether KPIs and scorecards are unified, and where peers land on a planning-maturity scale.

You’ll see joint-planning cadence · unified-KPI adoption · integrated-scorecard maturity matrix

Technology & analytics

Can this plug into ongoing planning, not just a one-time deck?

Benchmark attendance source systems, IWMS/sensor and dashboard readiness, data-lake export, and where AI is actually in use — with an analytics and data-governance maturity read.

You’ll see source-system & dashboard readiness · AI use-case adoption · analytics-maturity matrix

How to engage

Three tiers — exactly what each one gets

Every tier feeds the same confidential benchmark. What changes is how much you shape the study, and how much comes back tailored to your decisions.

ParticipantStrengthen the peer cohort~20–28 slide summary Steering ParticipantA focused read on your priority modulesFull deck + 1 readout Founding SponsorShape the study around a leadership decisionFull deck + exec readout + insertMost shaping
You shape
Contribute to the confidential peer benchmark
Input on the metrics that matter to youSelected modulesFull survey
Shape the peer cohort & priority cuts
Set definitions & the executive questions it answers
Steering touchpoints through the study
You receive
Blinded summary of selected findings
Full final benchmark deck
Methodology appendix & data dictionary
Sponsor-specific peer comparison (you vs. your cut)1 readout
Interim / early directional readoutUp to 2
Live executive readout (CFO / CHRO / COO)
Action roadmap
Optional sponsor add-ons

Founding Sponsors can layer on

Custom peer cohortSteering workshopExecutive talking pointsInterim insight sprintsDashboard-ready data export

No published pricing. Scope, peer set, and tier are confirmed on a 30-minute call.

The easy way in

Tell us you’re in — that’s the whole ask

No forms and no commitment. Saying you’re in reserves your place in the founding cohort and your say over the peer set, the metrics, and the cuts — while scope and terms get worked out on a short call. Step back any time; nothing is owed.

Need something to take to your leadership? sign a one-page, non-binding LOI →

  • No commitment. It’s a soft yes — step back any time, and nothing is owed.
  • Reserves your place. A founding-cohort seat, with input on the peer set and the metrics that matter to you.
  • Holds today’s terms. Locks the working scope and ranges above while we finalize the details on a short call.
What participation involves

Designed as a light-lift exchange

A structured decision-support process, not a large spreadsheet dropped on your desk.

1

Understand the decision

A one-page view of what the study answers, the confidentiality rules, and what you get back.

2

Assign internal owners

One lead coordinates; CRE, Finance, Workplace, and analytics contribute where needed.

3

Complete the core

A short required dataset via a 30–45 minute call or a template — optional detail where you have it.

4

Clarify definitions

Follow-up only where a definition or outlier materially affects comparability.

5

Receive your readout

An interim directional view for planning, then the final normalized benchmark.

The promise

What we ask of you

  • A short required core set; optional detail only where available
  • Data by a 30–45 minute call or by template — your choice
  • Rounded estimates are fine, as long as they’re labeled
  • Follow-up only where definitions need clarification
  • Results aggregated and anonymized — no company-level attribution
Timeline

The arc — July to December 2026

Each bar shows a phase’s duration; overlaps are intentional, since recruiting, QA, and analysis run as rolling work. The two peacock markers are the moments a sponsor receives something.

Phase
1 · Scope & metrics
Jul 1 – Jul 12
2 · Pilot template
Jul 13 – Jul 26
3 · Recruit & collect
Jul 27 – Aug 30
4 · QA & normalize
Aug 31 – Sep 20
5 · Interim readout
Sep 21 – Oct 11
6 · Deeper analysis
Oct 12 – Nov 22
7 · Final benchmark
Nov 23 – Dec 11
Scope & design Recruit & collect Analyze & normalize Sponsor deliverable Planning view · dates to confirm.

Track A

Budget-supporting early readout

~ late Sep – mid Oct

Enough evidence to support budget and planning before the full benchmark is complete.

  • Sponsor-specific decision brief
  • Peer-cohort status & early directional findings
  • Open-definition register — usable now vs. caveated

Track B

Final defensible benchmark

~ late Nov – mid Dec

The full sponsor-grade output with normalized definitions and executive-ready analysis.

  • Raw and normalized values separated, outliers followed up
  • TCO, program spend, utilization & scope normalized
  • Methodology appendix & data dictionary
How it stays credible & confidential

The value isn’t the survey. It’s definitions leaders can trust.

Confidential by design

  • Results are aggregated and anonymized
  • No company-level data attributed externally without approval
  • Sponsor cuts use blinded peers — shaping the cohort never means seeing named participant data
  • Raw responses preserved separately from normalized analysis

Credible under scrutiny

  • Definitions collected next to values, not after the fact
  • Outliers followed up; every chart labeled by sample, period, basis, denominator, and confidence
  • Cost work separates budget/cash, accounting/P&L, committed lease, capital, D&A, and program spend
  • Delivered with a methodology appendix and data dictionary

One participant’s high cost-to-revenue story changed materially once peer capital projects, depreciation, and program spend were normalized. That’s the difference between a survey and a benchmark leadership believes.

The 2025 sprint lesson — built into the 2026 study

Cleared for internal approval

Need internal sign-off to take part? We’ve made that the easy part.

Participation is built to clear Information Security, Legal, Finance, and Procurement without a fire drill: a narrow set of corporate metrics — no personal data, no system access — under a mutual NDA, with confidentiality enforced by a minimum-cohort rule and an antitrust-safe structure.

Information Security

No PII, no system access

Encrypted in transit and at rest, least-privilege access, no participant data fed to third-party AI tools, deletion on request. We’ll complete your questionnaire.

Legal / Privacy

Mutual NDA, you keep ownership

You own your data and can withdraw it before publication. A neutral third party aggregates historical data — the antitrust-safe pattern for peer benchmarking.

Finance / IR

Never identifiable

No cut is shown unless it pools at least five companies; figures are historical actuals, normalized into ranges. No company-level number is ever published.

Procurement

Ready for vendor review

Standard security questionnaire, proof of insurance, and prior-study references on request — one defined dataset, one named team.

Questions leaders ask

FAQ

What does a sponsor get that a participant doesn’t?

A participant contributes data and receives a blinded summary. A steering sponsor shapes the peer cohort, the survey questions, and the priority cuts — and receives a sponsor-specific peer comparison, early findings, methodology support, and an executive-ready readout the team can take to Finance, HR, Workplace, and the COO.

How much work is participation?

It’s a light-lift exchange: a short required dataset, optional detail where you have it, and follow-up only where definitions need clarifying. You can provide data through a 30–45 minute call or by completing a template. Rounded estimates are fine where labeled.

What data will you ask for?

A narrow core: company scale and footprint; total real estate cost and a minimum TCO component split; cost per employee, seat, capacity, and RSF; hybrid policy and seating model; average and peak utilization with source notes; and CRE operating-model basics. Deeper detail is optional and sponsor-driven.

How do you protect confidentiality?

Results are aggregated and anonymized, and no company-level data is attributed in the final deliverable. Sponsor-specific outputs use blinded peer cuts unless a participant explicitly approves attribution.

We need internal approval to participate — what about InfoSec, Legal, and data security?

We built participation to clear internal review: a narrow set of corporate metrics with no personal data and no system access, under a mutual NDA, with your data encrypted, never used to train AI tools, and deletable on request. You keep ownership and can withdraw before publication, and the study is structured to be antitrust-safe. We’ll complete your security questionnaire. See our full data security & confidentiality approach.

How do you compare companies that define things differently?

That’s the core of the study. We collect definitions alongside the metrics, preserve raw responses separately from the normalized analysis, follow up on outliers, and publish a data dictionary and methodology appendix. The 2025 sprint proved why this matters.

Can we choose the peer set?

Sponsors can influence the target peer cohort and priority cuts. We keep enough cohort balance to make the benchmark credible — neither too narrow to recruit nor too biased to use.

What if the sample is small?

This is a confidential, peer-relevant study, not a statistically representative market survey. The value is credible comparison against companies with similar workplace, cost, and operating-model challenges — with consistent definitions and sponsor-specific interpretation.