Offices have traditionally been designed according to a one-size-fits-all model, but many of the features now associated with neuro-inclusive design—such as quieter zones, clearer spatial cues, improved acoustics, and a wider range of layouts—benefit far more than just a single 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 “off-the-shelf” office, and that personality, preferences, and tasks all influence how people perceive a space and work within it. A 2018 research collaboration between the University of Bath, Bath Spa University, and Atkins specifically supported this thesis, highlighting that different spatial and environmental qualities—including 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 the best place to start, then, isn’t “How can we design for neurodivergent people?” but “Why have we accepted workplaces that require everyone to work under exactly the same conditions?”

Open-plan offices are a good example. For certain tasks and certain personalities, they can foster 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) found that background noise and open-plan workspaces have a negative impact on workplace well-being, while views of plants and natural elements can improve it. Another 2025 study of 971 employees working in activity-based offices found that a greater sense 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, greater work capacity, a lower risk of burnout, and fewer symptoms of insomnia.

This helps explain why the debate over neurodiversity in design is gaining momentum today—not in isolation, but alongside broader questions about the future of the office itself. Since the pandemic, organizations have spent a lot of time wondering how to encourage people to return to the workplace. Generally, this debate centers on collaboration, hospitality, and community. These elements are important. But they are not the whole answer.

People don’t come to the office just for the atmosphere. They come for different reasons, depending on the day. Sometimes they need to connect with others. Sometimes they need to focus. Sometimes they need a sense of belonging. Sometimes they need a quieter place than their home. Sometimes they need a quieter place 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 rest room and considering the job done. It is about recognizing that everyone perceives space differently, and that good design offers them multiple 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; it is also a business argument. The World Health Organization notes that safe and healthy work environments are more likely to minimize workplace tensions and conflicts and improve staff retention, performance, and productivity. The CIPD also highlights the importance of neuro-inclusion for well-being, performance, and retention.

This is where the topic becomes particularly interesting from a conceptual standpoint. Because once we stop viewing it as merely an addition to inclusion, it begins to refine the entire set of specifications.