Build an office-usage analysis dashboard

Why use this

1. A facilities team comparing offices may find occupancy figures that use different capacities, schedules or counting methods. A visually simple dashboard can hide whether an apparent difference reflects usage, missing observations or incompatible denominators.

2. This job could provide a reusable view whose definitions and coverage are visible beside the charts. That gives planners a basis for asking better questions before treating a pattern as justification for a space decision.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile location definitions and time coverage, then explain which comparisons are meaningful and which remain uncertain.

Simpler alternative

Use a spreadsheet pivot when all locations share a clean, stable measurement standard.

Unsuitable when

The analysis would expose individual movements or make employment decisions from attendance patterns.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Aggregated usage data

   Owner

   Facilities owner

   Minimum scope

   Location-period counts without person identifiers

   Quality check

   Check counting method, missing days and duplicates

2. Name

   Capacity and calendar

   Owner

   Facilities team

   Minimum scope

   Usable capacity, closures and operating periods

   Quality check

   Distinguish configured seats from usable capacity

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read a deidentified export and draft an aggregate dashboard; no badge-system or employee-level access.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Source systems, metric definitions, refresh support and exact runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Connecting personnel systems, sharing restricted occupancy data, publishing dashboards or changing facilities arrangements requires authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Location-comparison dashboard with coverage notes, capacity definitions and data-quality exceptions.

Critical checks

1. Use comparable periods and denominators; distinguish absence of records from no attendance; avoid small-group identification.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A closed office appears underused

   Why it matters

   The metric treats closure as low demand

   Proposed response

   Exclude or label closure periods consistently.

2. Signal

   One source counts entries and another people

   Why it matters

   The comparison mixes fundamentally different measures

   Proposed response

   Separate the metrics until definitions can be reconciled.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree aggregation rules, privacy thresholds and capacity definitions.

Ongoing review

1. Review coverage changes and exceptions before planning decisions.

Unknowns

1. Source accuracy, aggregation effort, refresh reliability and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent three offices with different capacities, one closure day and two count definitions; sketch an aggregate comparison.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag incompatible metrics; label the closure; show denominator choices; include no individual records.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if comparison needs personal tracking or missing definitions cannot be resolved.

Limits

1. Observed office use does not alone establish space needs, employee productivity or the cause of attendance changes.