CC
C. Couto Rosa Dutra De Oliveira
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
Flexibility in corporate office real estate
A leasehold occupier's perspective
Today’s corporations operate in a context of uncertainty, shaped by geopolitical instability, economic volatility, organizational change and evolving workplace practices. Within Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM), flexibility is increasingly relevant for managing the recurring mismatch between organizational demand and building supply. Although the literature on flexibility in the built environment has predominantly focused on the physical adaptability of buildings, this emphasis does not fully reflect the reality of conventional leasehold occupiers, whose ability to alter the asset itself is limited.
As a response, this research examines how corporate office occupiers under conventional leaseholds understand and operationalize flexibility at the asset level within CREM. It adopts a qualitative research design combining a literature review with semi-structured interviews conducted across three phases: at the market level, with industry consultants; at the case level, within a multi-tenant office building in Amsterdam; and at a comparative level, interviewing occupiers in other multi-tenant office settings. The empirical material was analyzed through thematic analysis using a primarily deductive coding framework, refined
with inductive insights from the interviews.
The findings show that flexibility is driven primarily by uncertainty, but that occupiers do not treat it as a single concept. Instead, flexibility is understood through five interrelated dimensions: Legal, Financial, Physical, Organizational and Building Offering flexibility. Among these, Legal and Financial flexibility emerge as the dominant mechanisms through which occupiers manage risk, secure incentives and respond to changing business conditions, often through trade-offs between lease length and financial contributions. Physical flexibility is mainly understood at the level of the leased premises through layout, floor distribution, and Activity-Based Working, while Organizational and Building Offering Flexibility help occupiers absorb fluctuations in attendance and changing space requirements.
By moving beyond a building-centric view, this research contributes to an occupier and asset-level perspective of flexibility in leased office environments. It shows that flexibility is not a fixed property of the building, but a context-dependent combination of contractual, financial, spatial, organizational and service-based mechanisms shaped by business characteristics, building conditions and market context. These insights support more informed CREM decision-making for occupiers, advisors and landlords working with existing multi-tenant office stock. ...
As a response, this research examines how corporate office occupiers under conventional leaseholds understand and operationalize flexibility at the asset level within CREM. It adopts a qualitative research design combining a literature review with semi-structured interviews conducted across three phases: at the market level, with industry consultants; at the case level, within a multi-tenant office building in Amsterdam; and at a comparative level, interviewing occupiers in other multi-tenant office settings. The empirical material was analyzed through thematic analysis using a primarily deductive coding framework, refined
with inductive insights from the interviews.
The findings show that flexibility is driven primarily by uncertainty, but that occupiers do not treat it as a single concept. Instead, flexibility is understood through five interrelated dimensions: Legal, Financial, Physical, Organizational and Building Offering flexibility. Among these, Legal and Financial flexibility emerge as the dominant mechanisms through which occupiers manage risk, secure incentives and respond to changing business conditions, often through trade-offs between lease length and financial contributions. Physical flexibility is mainly understood at the level of the leased premises through layout, floor distribution, and Activity-Based Working, while Organizational and Building Offering Flexibility help occupiers absorb fluctuations in attendance and changing space requirements.
By moving beyond a building-centric view, this research contributes to an occupier and asset-level perspective of flexibility in leased office environments. It shows that flexibility is not a fixed property of the building, but a context-dependent combination of contractual, financial, spatial, organizational and service-based mechanisms shaped by business characteristics, building conditions and market context. These insights support more informed CREM decision-making for occupiers, advisors and landlords working with existing multi-tenant office stock. ...
Today’s corporations operate in a context of uncertainty, shaped by geopolitical instability, economic volatility, organizational change and evolving workplace practices. Within Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM), flexibility is increasingly relevant for managing the recurring mismatch between organizational demand and building supply. Although the literature on flexibility in the built environment has predominantly focused on the physical adaptability of buildings, this emphasis does not fully reflect the reality of conventional leasehold occupiers, whose ability to alter the asset itself is limited.
As a response, this research examines how corporate office occupiers under conventional leaseholds understand and operationalize flexibility at the asset level within CREM. It adopts a qualitative research design combining a literature review with semi-structured interviews conducted across three phases: at the market level, with industry consultants; at the case level, within a multi-tenant office building in Amsterdam; and at a comparative level, interviewing occupiers in other multi-tenant office settings. The empirical material was analyzed through thematic analysis using a primarily deductive coding framework, refined
with inductive insights from the interviews.
The findings show that flexibility is driven primarily by uncertainty, but that occupiers do not treat it as a single concept. Instead, flexibility is understood through five interrelated dimensions: Legal, Financial, Physical, Organizational and Building Offering flexibility. Among these, Legal and Financial flexibility emerge as the dominant mechanisms through which occupiers manage risk, secure incentives and respond to changing business conditions, often through trade-offs between lease length and financial contributions. Physical flexibility is mainly understood at the level of the leased premises through layout, floor distribution, and Activity-Based Working, while Organizational and Building Offering Flexibility help occupiers absorb fluctuations in attendance and changing space requirements.
By moving beyond a building-centric view, this research contributes to an occupier and asset-level perspective of flexibility in leased office environments. It shows that flexibility is not a fixed property of the building, but a context-dependent combination of contractual, financial, spatial, organizational and service-based mechanisms shaped by business characteristics, building conditions and market context. These insights support more informed CREM decision-making for occupiers, advisors and landlords working with existing multi-tenant office stock.
As a response, this research examines how corporate office occupiers under conventional leaseholds understand and operationalize flexibility at the asset level within CREM. It adopts a qualitative research design combining a literature review with semi-structured interviews conducted across three phases: at the market level, with industry consultants; at the case level, within a multi-tenant office building in Amsterdam; and at a comparative level, interviewing occupiers in other multi-tenant office settings. The empirical material was analyzed through thematic analysis using a primarily deductive coding framework, refined
with inductive insights from the interviews.
The findings show that flexibility is driven primarily by uncertainty, but that occupiers do not treat it as a single concept. Instead, flexibility is understood through five interrelated dimensions: Legal, Financial, Physical, Organizational and Building Offering flexibility. Among these, Legal and Financial flexibility emerge as the dominant mechanisms through which occupiers manage risk, secure incentives and respond to changing business conditions, often through trade-offs between lease length and financial contributions. Physical flexibility is mainly understood at the level of the leased premises through layout, floor distribution, and Activity-Based Working, while Organizational and Building Offering Flexibility help occupiers absorb fluctuations in attendance and changing space requirements.
By moving beyond a building-centric view, this research contributes to an occupier and asset-level perspective of flexibility in leased office environments. It shows that flexibility is not a fixed property of the building, but a context-dependent combination of contractual, financial, spatial, organizational and service-based mechanisms shaped by business characteristics, building conditions and market context. These insights support more informed CREM decision-making for occupiers, advisors and landlords working with existing multi-tenant office stock.