For my book, The Smart Building Advantage, in which I tracked the evolution of the recent built environment, I trawled through more than a decade’s worth of data. I wasn’t short of material. I studied the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, 22 Bishopsgate in London and NEOM in Saudi Arabia, amongst many extraordinary examples of how buildings and technology can work together. From these, I concluded that smart buildings are like chameleons in the way they’ve adapted to meet the shifting demands of the corporate zeitgeist.
At the start of the 2010s, smart buildings were about promoting sustainability and limiting fuel bills. Then, as rents increased and technology improved, they became a way of managing capacity as the likes of WeWork made hot-desking popular. The consequences of this approach were striking: the average space per full time office worker shrank from around 23 square metres to as little as around six metres.
Unsurprisingly, people started to feel like battery chickens, so smart buildings pivoted to promoting employee health and well-being, using sensors and monitors to improve the office environment. Inevitably, the aftermath of COVID triggered another shift as return-to-office lasered in on compliance issues- who was coming in to work, who wasn’t, how you booked your desk.
But while smart buildings may have proved adaptable in framing their USP, ultimately what they do has changed little. They are where the physical meets the digital to manage those everyday challenges which make a huge difference to how people experience their workplaces, everything from how companies determine when their canteens are full, to ensuring their lighting systems mirror the rotation of the sun, to protect their workers’ circadian rhythms.
It would be wrong, though, to view smart building technology as monolithic. Rather, my research suggests it comprises three pillars. When it comes to making buildings ‘smart’, around 1 percent of the business’s budget goes on energy and sustainability technology, around 9 percent on rent and maintenance, and the remaining 90 percent on payroll, health and well-being programs and other employee benefits.
I discovered that where companies enjoy the most benefit from their investment is in the 1 percent – using smart technology to improve energy efficiency, storage management and sustainability.
Get basics like heating, lighting and air conditioning right and the returns can be substantial. But it also helps if they can be flexible with space (the 9 percent) while unlocking health and productivity outcomes (the 90 percent). I calculate that for every $1 invested in smart technology, a company will enjoy a return of $3 over a five year period.
Admittedly, it’s difficult to put figures against the overall return on investment that smart buildings can deliver because each company is unique. For example, if we’re looking at the approach through the prism of productivity, it could be how many lines of code a software company produces a day, or legal challenges a law firm might file.
Greasing the wheels
But all organisations endure common workplace frictions, whether it’s their lifts being incorrectly sequenced or the loos being cleaned at the wrong time. We shouldn’t underestimate the impact these frictions have on companies’ performance: the Stoddart Review, published in 2016, suggested that around 25 percent of a typical office worker’s day is lost to them.
By removing these frictions, smart buildings drive efficiencies and ultimately enhance companies’ bottom lines. I estimate that smart buildings could realise companies $1,000 per employee per year or $10 per square foot of office space, compared with their non-smart equivalents, and that firms which invest in them will see a return on their investment within 18 to 24 months.
Given these sort of numbers, you might believe that migrating to a smart building is central to all companies’ growth strategies.
But, no.
The truth is that, when it comes to smart buildings, we haven’t been too smart. Too often, clients have paid contractors for the design and delivery of a building whilst ignoring the operational side of things. Consequently, they end up failing to capitalise on the data insights that smart building systems deliver, squandering the very advantage they should confer and undermining their true impact. Get the operations side right, however, and the rewards are significant. Retention rates rise, absenteeism falls and productivity increases. And of course, a super smart, well designed and managed building, is a great asset for attracting talent.
True, employees are still ambiguous about smart buildings, particularly how they use data to track attendance, triggering concerns about surveillance creep.
But this tension can be negotiated if the value proposition to the individual employee is made clear.
Indeed, one of the central findings of JLL’s new Global Consumer Experience Survey 2025 is the growing demand for personalisation in real estate – and how technology can deliver this.
The rise of in-building mobile phone apps as the central place for all employees’ amenities is over. People have come to understand how it created an administrative burden to the point that many employees are now seeking a digital detox. It’s here that can act as an agent on our behalf, delivering on the convenience of smart buildings but without burdening the individual. To put it bluntly: we want technology but we don’t want it to feel intrusive.
For developers, this presents a strategic opportunity to create intelligently integrated environments where technology operates invisibly, balancing digital enablement with authentic experiences while delivering climate resilience through smart design.
Creating new methods for employees to interact with their digital services is paramount. If developers promote channels that we’re more familiar with, like WhatsApp for meeting room requests, McDonald’s ordering screens for our stationery needs, or Alexa to help make meeting rooms warmer, they can create smart buildings that deliver impact, not admin.
Personally, I dream of a future where my Siri connects with the core systems of a building and behaves like Mr Carson from Downton Abbey, my own virtual butler and central point of interaction with my office.
I mean, who wouldn’t to live out their own Downton fantasy?
October 9, 2025
Is a smart building worth it? My research says the answer is an unequivocal yes
by Dr Matthew Marson • Comment, Property, Technology
At the start of the 2010s, smart buildings were about promoting sustainability and limiting fuel bills. Then, as rents increased and technology improved, they became a way of managing capacity as the likes of WeWork made hot-desking popular. The consequences of this approach were striking: the average space per full time office worker shrank from around 23 square metres to as little as around six metres.
Unsurprisingly, people started to feel like battery chickens, so smart buildings pivoted to promoting employee health and well-being, using sensors and monitors to improve the office environment. Inevitably, the aftermath of COVID triggered another shift as return-to-office lasered in on compliance issues- who was coming in to work, who wasn’t, how you booked your desk.
But while smart buildings may have proved adaptable in framing their USP, ultimately what they do has changed little. They are where the physical meets the digital to manage those everyday challenges which make a huge difference to how people experience their workplaces, everything from how companies determine when their canteens are full, to ensuring their lighting systems mirror the rotation of the sun, to protect their workers’ circadian rhythms.
It would be wrong, though, to view smart building technology as monolithic. Rather, my research suggests it comprises three pillars. When it comes to making buildings ‘smart’, around 1 percent of the business’s budget goes on energy and sustainability technology, around 9 percent on rent and maintenance, and the remaining 90 percent on payroll, health and well-being programs and other employee benefits.
I discovered that where companies enjoy the most benefit from their investment is in the 1 percent – using smart technology to improve energy efficiency, storage management and sustainability.
Get basics like heating, lighting and air conditioning right and the returns can be substantial. But it also helps if they can be flexible with space (the 9 percent) while unlocking health and productivity outcomes (the 90 percent). I calculate that for every $1 invested in smart technology, a company will enjoy a return of $3 over a five year period.
Admittedly, it’s difficult to put figures against the overall return on investment that smart buildings can deliver because each company is unique. For example, if we’re looking at the approach through the prism of productivity, it could be how many lines of code a software company produces a day, or legal challenges a law firm might file.
Greasing the wheels
But all organisations endure common workplace frictions, whether it’s their lifts being incorrectly sequenced or the loos being cleaned at the wrong time. We shouldn’t underestimate the impact these frictions have on companies’ performance: the Stoddart Review, published in 2016, suggested that around 25 percent of a typical office worker’s day is lost to them.
By removing these frictions, smart buildings drive efficiencies and ultimately enhance companies’ bottom lines. I estimate that smart buildings could realise companies $1,000 per employee per year or $10 per square foot of office space, compared with their non-smart equivalents, and that firms which invest in them will see a return on their investment within 18 to 24 months.
Given these sort of numbers, you might believe that migrating to a smart building is central to all companies’ growth strategies.
But, no.
The truth is that, when it comes to smart buildings, we haven’t been too smart. Too often, clients have paid contractors for the design and delivery of a building whilst ignoring the operational side of things. Consequently, they end up failing to capitalise on the data insights that smart building systems deliver, squandering the very advantage they should confer and undermining their true impact. Get the operations side right, however, and the rewards are significant. Retention rates rise, absenteeism falls and productivity increases. And of course, a super smart, well designed and managed building, is a great asset for attracting talent.
True, employees are still ambiguous about smart buildings, particularly how they use data to track attendance, triggering concerns about surveillance creep.
But this tension can be negotiated if the value proposition to the individual employee is made clear.
Indeed, one of the central findings of JLL’s new Global Consumer Experience Survey 2025 is the growing demand for personalisation in real estate – and how technology can deliver this.
The rise of in-building mobile phone apps as the central place for all employees’ amenities is over. People have come to understand how it created an administrative burden to the point that many employees are now seeking a digital detox. It’s here that can act as an agent on our behalf, delivering on the convenience of smart buildings but without burdening the individual. To put it bluntly: we want technology but we don’t want it to feel intrusive.
For developers, this presents a strategic opportunity to create intelligently integrated environments where technology operates invisibly, balancing digital enablement with authentic experiences while delivering climate resilience through smart design.
Creating new methods for employees to interact with their digital services is paramount. If developers promote channels that we’re more familiar with, like WhatsApp for meeting room requests, McDonald’s ordering screens for our stationery needs, or Alexa to help make meeting rooms warmer, they can create smart buildings that deliver impact, not admin.
Personally, I dream of a future where my Siri connects with the core systems of a building and behaves like Mr Carson from Downton Abbey, my own virtual butler and central point of interaction with my office.
I mean, who wouldn’t to live out their own Downton fantasy?
Matthew Marson is Managing Director EMEA, JLLT Advisory