Traditionally, offices have been designed according to a single model, but many of the features now associated with neuro-inclusive design—such as quieter zones, clearer spatial cues, improved acoustics, and a greater variety of layouts—benefit far more than just one group of users.

This is consistent with the available data. Research on workplace design has repeatedly shown that there is no such thing as a truly “ready-to-use” office, and that personality, preferences, and tasks influence how people perceive a space and work within it. A 2018 research collaboration between the University of Bath, Bath Spa University, and Atkins supported this very thesis, emphasizing that different spatial and environmental qualities—particularly density, views, and noise levels—shape the experience in different ways, and that activity-based environments can help support different tasks and user profiles.

Perhaps, therefore, the best place to start isn’t “How should we design for neurodivergent people?” but rather “Why have we accepted workplaces that require everyone to work under exactly the same conditions?”

Open-plan offices are a good example of this. For certain tasks and certain personalities, they can promote energy, interaction, and visibility. For others, they are a constant source of distraction that hinders concentration. A recent systematic review of 55 studies (Design Research Society Digital Library) revealed that background noise and open-plan workspaces have a negative impact on well-being at work, while views of plants and natural elements can improve it. Another 2025 study involving 971 employees working in activity-based offices found that a greater perception of task privacy, a better fit between the individual and their environment, higher satisfaction with the work environment, and greater ease in changing workspaces were associated with better recovery, higher work capacity, a lower risk of burnout, and fewer symptoms of insomnia.

This helps explain why the debate on neurodiversity in design is gaining greater relevance today—not in isolation, but alongside broader questions about the future of the office itself. Since the pandemic, organizations have spent a great deal of time wondering how to encourage people to return to the workplace. Generally speaking, this debate centers on collaboration, inclusivity, and community. These elements are important. But they do not constitute the complete answer.

People don’t go to the office just for the atmosphere. They go for different reasons, depending on the day. Sometimes they need to build connections. Sometimes they need to focus. Sometimes they need a sense of belonging. Sometimes they need a place that’s quieter than their home. Sometimes they need a place that’s quieter than the office where they already work.

That is why neuro-inclusive design should not be reduced to a simple list of technical specifications. It is not simply a matter of adding a break room and calling it a day. It is about recognizing that everyone perceives space differently, and that good design offers them various ways to thrive within that space.

The BSI’s PAS 6463 standard reflects this diversity. It covers lighting, acoustics, thermal comfort, and wayfinding, but the fundamental principle is that poorly designed environments can cause avoidable stress and exclusion, while the best ones reduce friction and facilitate participation. This is not just a social argument, but also a business one. The World Health Organization notes that safe and healthy work environments are more likely to minimize workplace tensions and conflicts and to improve staff retention, performance, and productivity. The CIPD also highlights the importance of neuroinclusion for well-being, performance, and retention.

This is where the issue becomes particularly interesting from a conceptual standpoint. Because, as soon as we stop viewing it as merely a complement to inclusion, it begins to shape the entire set of specifications.