A Physical Object in a Digital World

We talk to a designer, and in essence discover it is a conversation about business. Agile architecture, modularity, designing by data – these concepts sound like a futuristic vision, but as our guest shows, they are becoming a necessity. We wonder whether Polish investors and developers are already ready to move away from short-term thinking based on cost per square meter, and instead bet on long-term value, measurable in CAPEX and OPEX. Can ESG pressure and upcoming regulations force the market to abandon old habits and enter the era of next-generation offices?

Krzysztof Kogut:

The paradox of durability and agility. How do you define “agility” in the language of architectural details? What does it mean for the structural grid, floor-to-ceiling height, installation reserves, facade module, core density? Please give an example of a design decision that raises CAPEX by X%, but shortens the adaptation time and cost by Y%.

Konrad Krusiewicz:

I have always been fascinated by how architecture can respond to variability – not only in time, but also in the organizational context. Companies grow, change strategy, go through transformations. The office must be prepared for this, because it happens faster and faster. And this is exactly where the topic of agility arises.

Agility is not just a project feature – it is a way of thinking about an interior as an ecosystem. It’s not just about “quickly rearranging the desk layout”. It’s about ensuring that the designed space, its division and technical infrastructure, supports future business decisions.

In the projects we carry out, agility manifests primarily in implementing a certain type of modularity that allows changing the spatial layout without additional, massive involvement, or in creating spaces ready for change, thanks to advance provision of additional installations and their capacity.

A good example here could be lighting and control systems. It happens that we propose solutions that, at the implementation stage, raise the investment costs by even 5–8%, but when the need arises, they allow for instant reconfiguration. Such a new space adaptation is often 60–70% less time and cost than in the case of a rigid fit-out.

Rest and meeting area in Clariant office, Łódź
Module as the office “API”. How far can modularity (demountable partitions, ceilings/grids, raised floors, plug-and-play MEP) go in Polish realizations today? Where does structural modularity end and equipment and systems modularity begin?

Modularity is not just a technical solution. It’s a design philosophy that assumes space should be like an operating system – with the ability to install, uninstall, and update components without restarting the entire office.

There are plenty of solutions that allow this. We are able to realize offices that are 100% ready for active modifications in real time, thanks to appropriate planning. The limit lies only in the courage of investors, the budget, and the organizational culture.

Of course, everything starts with a well-thought-out building. A properly designed structural grid, floorplate, and facade layout very much support the subsequent stages of interior design. I always say there are no bad buildings, but in fact arranging interiors is easier if we have an organized floor plan.

Of course, any space can be well-designed with its modularity in mind. However, it should be understood that modularity does not mean everything is out of a catalogue – but that what comes from a catalogue can harmonize with the unique narrative of the space.

Collaboration area in OLX Group office, Poznań
How to design a space that “knows” from the start how it is being used (telemetry, occupancy, IAQ), while respecting privacy? What physical interfaces (shafts, technical cabinets, edge/IoT locations) and data standards should be written into the base design to not block analytics and automation? SRI/EPBD as a new criterion for digital building “readiness”.

Designing spaces “by data” is a real direction. Not yet obvious to everyone. This is an important aspect in a world where agility and optimization will be based on hard data. But for a building and space to “know” how they are being used, everything must be ready for this from the start – from the foundations to the ceiling.

In practice, this means planning systems that collect and process data from elements such as presence sensors, IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) sensors, energy and light measurements, as well as IoT systems. Installation shafts, access to technical cabinets, and flexible technology zones should not be accidental – they must be part of the design strategy.

Standards? The minimum today is SRI – Smart Readiness Indicator – but the EPBD is quickly catching up with us, namely the EU directive that directly addresses the “digital readiness” of buildings and energy management. This is not just a technical checklist – it is an operational and investment requirement.

Of course, data is not everything. Architecture must also protect privacy, which is why it should be designed with transparent systems and clear boundaries between monitoring and user intimacy. So that data is useful, but never invasive.

Should an architect provide a “skeleton” for the digital twin of an object – that is, not just a BIM model, but also a sensor map, zone identification, and an integration scheme with BMS/CMMS? What is the bottleneck today: data standards, contracts, or collaboration culture?

BIM in interior design is not yet common practice. Although at The Design Group we are essentially migrating our projects to BIM at 80–90%, market demand for this is not yet there. Ultimately, a project in BIM as a skeleton should be equipped with “nerves” – a sensor map, zone identification, integration with BMS and CMMS systems. Such a project can then be a tool for actual and reliable management of data from the space.

The bottleneck here is client awareness and the lack of an established need for such a design approach. The technology exists – we have tools, formats, capabilities, and regulations will ultimately enforce this. We like projects where the architect, engineer, IT, and Facility Management speak the same language from day one. However, contracts often do not anticipate such relationships, and investors treat data as an “add-on”, not a foundation.

Open space in BAT DBS office, Warsaw
Design for Disassembly (DfD) in fit-out. What would your “minimum viable fit-out” look like, which can be dismantled and reused after 3–5 years? Which elements (partitions, ceilings, lighting, sanitary facilities) are realistically suitable for disassembly and reuse, and where are the barriers from fire safety/acoustics regulations and construction practice?

The project should from the start assume not only how the space will be used, but also what will happen to it in a few years. In practice, a well-designed fit-out should even allow for the recovery or transfer of elements at the end of the office life cycle, such as modular partitions, lighting, raised floors, and even acoustic elements – if they are prefabricated.

Of course, barriers are not lacking. The biggest? Fire safety regulations, acoustics, and, unfortunately, contractor habits. It is still easier to do something one-off than to design a space with the idea that someone will dismantle it in a few years. But this is changing. Both ESG pressure and the circular economy are enforcing the implementation of new standards.

At TDG, we try to look at fit-out not as an end, but as the beginning of a cycle. And we ask: “What will happen to this in 5 or 10 years?”.

How to design layouts that accommodate variability in occupancy (20–60%) and “peak days”, without creating vacancies? How does the role of social zones and “layers” of privacy change on high-presence days? How do you end the dispute “more focus or more collaboration”?

Simplifying – layouts must be fluid: shared, multifunctional spaces with a double life – which serve for focused work in the morning, and transform into a meeting or workshop zone in the afternoon. Consequently, the role of social zones naturally grows. They are no longer a “nice addition” – they are a buffer that absorbs excess traffic on “peak” days. We also need layers of privacy – mobile, adaptable, not necessarily in the form of closed rooms. Properly designed focus pods, niches, micro-regeneration zones – these balance the dynamics of presence in the office.

And the dispute: “More focus or more collaboration”? I believe both forms of work are needed – the question is: does the office offer the possibility of choice and changing the work mode during the day? If so, there is no dispute. We have balance.

Quiet work zone in Zendesk office, Kraków
Can architecture work “in sprints”? How do you break the functional program into iterations, and how to contract for variability (IPD vs. traditional model, options in documentation, reserves for change)? What convinced you it works – and when did it not work?

Working with clients, I see how valuable micro-iterations are – phasing decisions, dividing the functional program into thematic blocks that we can test and verify. This approach reduces the risk of a design miss. The client receives not one ready concept, but the ability to make decisions in the rhythm of changing data.

This requires a different way of thinking – also on the client’s side. The key is the form of collaboration – contracts that allow optionality, reserves for changes.

Does it work? Yes, especially where the client is aware and wants to participate in the process, not just approve its results. It does not work when there is no internal team on the client’s side that could keep up with this rhythm. Because agility requires not just a flexible architect – but also organizational readiness on the other side.

How to avoid an “office from a catalogue” with high standardization? How to build brand identity on a palette of modules (rhythms, repetitiveness vs. authorial accents, secondary materials) – so that beauty is not one-off, but “adaptable”?

That’s it – today beauty must be flexible, or “adaptable”, as you aptly put it. That’s why we design identity in a way that survives transformations. We don’t lock it into a wall color – we look for it in a system that can be developed, scaled, redesigned without losing meaning. We build it in layers – working with material, detail, light, proportion. In a modular system, the play of nuances becomes particularly important: changing the rhythm of the grid, a color counterpoint, a local detail in strategic places. Sometimes a single clear accent is enough to break the monotony and give the space a unique character.

At TDG, we look at standardization not as a catalogue, but as an alphabet. Module, rhythm, repetitiveness – these are letters. But it is only the appropriate composition and authorial accents that create a unique language of space. I would even venture to say that in a well-designed interior, this modularity or standardization is almost imperceptible.

Jungle Room in Allegro office, Warsaw
What three obstacles most impede modular and digitally-ready design in Poland (e.g. budgets, supply chain, data standards, fire safety approvals, owner-tenant lease practices)? What three levers have the greatest effect (e.g. renovation passports, SRI, operational data requirements in contracts)?

The first problem is short-term thinking – what we al