The Impact of Implementing Kinetic Interior Techniques on the Functional Performance of Office Spaces Using Space Syntax

Abstract

With the increasing use of modern technologies in interior design, numerous recent studies have made the effects of kinetic-based design techniques on users’ perceptions a crucial topic, and sustainable performance has emerged as essential. From this standpoint, this study uses a space syntax approach to investigate how human behavioral performance in workspaces is affected by kinetic interiors. Three kinetic-based design strategies were employed to evaluate changes in spatial configuration characteristics, and the relevant terminology was adapted to account for the use of kinetic technology. The paper adopts a comparative analysis model to follow these changes using four syntactic measures: integration, choice, connectivity, and clustering coefficient. The proposed evaluation approach is applied to a traditional office building in Port Said, Egypt, showcasing various aspects of kinetic technology in workspaces. The study’s findings elucidate the correlations between design strategies and the resulting spatial characteristics, guiding designers in evaluating the features of each system and facilitating comparisons between them. Finally, the study’s main aim is to propose a three-step design process as a guideline for creating an integrated kinetic technology design, involving the evaluation of the proposed alternatives to achieve the desired spatial characteristics.

1. Introduction

The modern workplace is a dynamic environment that constantly evolves and requires a high degree of adaptability [1,2,3]. However, architects and designers cannot always predict or control changes. One of the most significant challenges in architecture is the rapid transformation of users’ demands and preferences over time. To address this issue, buildings should be designed with a physical, spatial, and cultural framework [4]. Various terminologies, such as “flexible workspaces”, “adaptable offices”, and “resilient workplaces”, have become more common in this context [5].

The design of office environments has undergone substantial evolution in recent years, highlighting the critical need for organizations and designers to continuously monitor and respond to changing work practices. Post-pandemic studies emphasize that COVID-19 has reshaped spatial requirements, prioritizing flexible layouts and environments that enhance employee health and overall well-being [6]. In parallel, the widespread adoption of hybrid work models has transformed space utilization patterns, necessitating configurations that effectively support both remote and on-site collaboration [7,8]. The integration of data-driven strategies has further enabled dynamic adaptability, with real-time movement analytics informing design adjustments that align with operational changes [7,9]. Additionally, research increasingly demonstrates a clear connection between the spatial configuration, as assessed using space syntax indicators and occupational well-being, including cognitive comfort, social interaction, and stress reduction [10]. Together, these findings underscore that modern office design must be flexible, evidence-based, and responsive to the evolving demands of contemporary workforces.

Related research on kinetic technology in architecture has varied focuses. Some studies have examined the kinetic applications of facades to provide environmental and aesthetic benefits [11,12]. Others have classified and described the technological and dynamic aspects of architecture [13,14]. Still others have explored the use of kinetic interior design to achieve internal adaptability in spaces [15,16].

A literature review revealed a lack of a clear framework for linking the kinetic-based design strategies and the resulting spatial configuration changes in interior spaces. This study aims to develop an evaluation approach to estimate the changes in internal spaces resulting from applying kinetic-based design strategies in office buildings. The proposed approach will highlight a clear understanding and overview of the factors that must be considered when analyzing the internal architectural flexibility of space. To address the lack of a clear framework for assessing the resulting characteristics of office spaces, this paper proposes a multidisciplinary framework informed by a comprehensive review of the international literature on flexible buildings, functional flexibility, adaptability, kinetic technology, and assessment instruments. The proposed evaluation approach relies on four space syntax measures: integration, choice, connectivity, and clustering coefficient. These indicators compare three design strategies applied to traditional office buildings.

Although previous studies have investigated kinetic architecture and space syntax separately, limited research has examined the configurational impact of kinetic interior strategies on functional office performance using quantitative syntactic measures. Most of the earlier research has concentrated on formal design applications or technology classification without offering an assessment framework for spatial performance. Therefore, this study addresses this gap by proposing a comparative syntactic evaluation model that links kinetic interior strategies with measurable configurational indicators and translates them into office spatial performance implications. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by proposing an integrative framework that links kinetic interior design strategies with space syntax metrics to evaluate spatial adaptability in office environments. Unlike previous studies that primarily analyze static spatial configurations, the proposed approach explores how dynamic interior interventions can influence spatial performance indicators and workplace functionality.

Research Questions

• RQ1: How do different kinetic interior design strategies affect the configurational properties of office spaces as measured by space syntax indicators (integration, choice, connectivity, and clustering coefficient)?
• RQ2: How much can kinetic office design options’ functional spatial performance be evaluated using space syntax metrics as a comparison evaluation tool?
• RQ3: How can the measured configurational changes inform a structured decision-making process for selecting appropriate kinetic interior strategies in office environments?

Therefore, the paper is structured through an overview, as demonstrated in Figure 1. Section 2 provides a theoretical overview of using base-kinetic design strategies for enhancing the internal configuration of workspaces. Then, Section 3 reviews the space syntax methodology and the four syntactic measures utilized. Subsequently, Section 4 presents the selected case study and its current situation syntactic analysis. Section 5 introduces the proposed alternatives based on kinetic-based design strategies. The space syntax analysis results for the three suggested alternatives are then presented in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 presents a kinetic-based design process.

2. Literature Review

The modern workplace layout is quickly altering, driven by the changing needs of a dynamic workforce [17]. Traditional static workplaces are losing their way to facilities that value flexibility, collaboration, and employee well-being [18,19]. Kinetic technology, with its ability to harness movement and motion for various purposes, presents a compelling solution to address these evolving demands [20]. In addition, kinetic technology refers to a broad range of applications that use movement and motion to create energy or accomplish certain activities [20]. This includes adjustable desks, dynamic lighting systems, interactive walls, and energy-harvesting floors, among others. By integrating these technologies into office spaces, it is possible to design spaces that are both functional and responsive to the demands of their users [19]. Kinetic technology offers numerous benefits for office spaces, addressing key challenges faced by contemporary workplaces: creating adaptable and dynamic spaces, enhancing sustainability and energy efficiency, fostering collaboration and interaction, and promoting ergonomic comfort and health [21,22]. Contemporary workplace environments are increasingly shaped by evolving expectations of users and organizational practices [23]. Research on workplace behavior highlights how individual and collective activities within office spaces are influenced by spatial configuration, interaction patterns, and environmental amenities (e.g., social collaboration, circulation preferences, and privacy) [24]. In parallel, user-centered design approaches have gained prominence in architecture and interior design, emphasizing adaptability, comfort, and responsiveness to occupants’ needs. This shift is evident in recent trends such as flexible workstations, agile environments, biophilic design, and technology-augmented interiors that support dynamic work patterns [23,24]. These emerging trends underscore the importance of integrating human behavior considerations in evaluating office performance, providing a theoretical grounding for the current study’s focus on kinetic interior strategies and spatial performance.

As a result, to provide workplaces with adaptability and internal configuration abilities, this paper introduces three kinetic-based design strategies in response to changing needs: internal system configuration (ST1), generalization and personalizing (ST2), and multifunctional spaces (ST3). Each strategy and the techniques it use are briefly summarized in the next section.

Internal System Configuration Strategy (ST1): This strategy focuses on building internal systems and leverages a combination of approaches to achieve adaptability without predefining specific use areas during design. This includes the use of independent buildings and modules, movable partitions, and distinct zoning between permanent and non-permanent regions [25].

Generalization and Personalization Strategy (ST2): This approach includes the strategic identification and accessibility of services and technical areas, which allows for more effective maintenance and inspections. Additionally, it emphasizes the design of environments that may effortlessly transition between related and separated states, which could be helped by kinetic technology integration [3].

Multifunctional Spaces Strategy (ST3): This approach, based on the belief that activities with a discussed essence can harmonize within a space [26], is distinguished by open-floor plans, prefabricated furniture, modular units, and flexible partitions that allow for expansion and reconfiguration [3]. Recognizing that every building is unique in terms of its form, purpose, and interactions with people and the environment are crucial [27].

To put these strategies into action, a classification framework for the characteristics of kinetic elements in interior spaces was required, such as the type and direction of movement, the type and form of the kinetic element, movement limitations, and methods of control [28]. Figure 2 illustrates the three kinetic-based strategies, their techniques, and the kinetic technology properties in interior spaces.

The crucial performance of using kinetic technology in interior spaces, as well as its parameters and determinants, is often studied by academics. Various techniques and strategies are used to examine and analyze linked patterns of users’ movement and behavior in areas that vary according to the size, kind, and usage of buildings, such as post-occupancy evaluation, space syntax analysis, programming, user needs analysis, behavioral research and precedents, agent-based modelling, and virtual reality [30,31,32,33,34,35,36].

Therefore, the space syntax technique is more suitable and trustworthy to accomplish the current study’s goal of addressing the effects of kinetic technology on the functional and visual performance of office spaces.

3. Methodology and Methods

Interpreting human behavior considering spatial relations in interior and urban settings is the focus of space syntax, a variety of techniques for showing the spatial patterns of urban and constructed environments [37]. Space syntax has been studied at the architectural level over time. It demonstrates its capacity to recognize and describe the socio-spatial organization of constructed settings [38], as well as its adaptability across a variety of dimensions, from furniture placement in interior spaces to various spatial and social linkages in metropolitan settings. Additionally, a geometrical approach was used by space syntax, which may show the hidden functional and aesthetic characteristics of the spatial structure being studied [5].

In order to fully understand the impact of kinetic technology on functional performance within the interior spaces under assessment, this study uses a two-pronged analytical method. First, an axial analysis will be performed to evaluate how kinetic-based design strategies affect the functional performance of spaces. Second, the kinetic spaces’ influence on these spaces’ visual permeability will be particularly shown using visual analysis. Both analyses will be carried out using DepthmapX 0.7.0 software, a vector-based application created by Turner at University College London, which addresses 2D designs and is used to compute various metrics and correlations. The application makes it easier to compute numerous spatial metrics and associations that are relevant to this study [30].

Some of the most efficient measures have been chosen. This choice gives special attention to workplace space-related considerations [39,40], and the section that follows will offer a thorough description of these selected measures.

Integration (IN) calculates the average shortest path length between each system node. The most notable locations that are reachable from any given location are thus represented visually or spatially by this measure. Integration essentially represents the “depth” or “shallowness” of a given space with respect to every other space in the system [41]. As a result, it is a crucial sign of how well a place is integrated or separated within the larger spatial framework. Academics frequently call this measure a “to-movement” study because of its emphasis on movement patterns and accessibility [42].

Choice (CH) According to [43], the flow of movement across environments is measured by choice. Among all possible travel routes in the configuration, the choice finds the spaces that are on the shortest paths [44]. The shortest paths between any two spaces in the plan are likely to pass through the space if the choice value is high. A building’s main corridor connects several wings, and its central courtyard connects several parts [45].

Connectivity (CO) concentrates on the immediate visual surroundings of a particular path or graph cell [45]. The measure counts the number of immediately visible cells, or direct visual connections, in that specific element. Essentially, the connection provides information about how visible a path or cell is in its immediate environment, ignoring the larger network design [43]. Because of this feature, it is a basic measure that mainly displays an element’s visible properties [46].

Clustering Coefficient (CC) investigates the arrangements of every point. It calculates the number of nodes that are immediately visible to one another and observable from one location [47]. Put more simply, this measure assesses how visually related the parts are in each space. According to [45], a high clustering coefficient indicates that there is little loss of visual information when shifting from one place to another. On the other hand, a low clustering value suggests that a movement significantly reduces the amount of visually available content. Clarifying how navigation, movement patterns, and the dynamic nature of visual information interact within a spatial system requires an understanding of these characteristics [48,49,50,51].

The magnitude required for each space type based on the different criteria is not well understood, even after the chosen space syntactic measures have been chosen to be used to compare the alternatives generated using the three kinetic-based design strategies in office interior design. The values of all the criteria vary according to the type of space and its use, for instance, with open office spaces requiring a high level of integration and closed offices requiring a moderate level. Meeting rooms, collaboration spaces, support spaces, circulation spaces, open office space, and closed office space were the six main categories into which the office spaces were divided.

To establish a consistent evaluative framework for the analyzed layouts, a reference table was developed to relate each space type to its expected behavioral and functional intent and corresponding spatial characteristics.

Table 1. Linking space syntax metrics to functional performance in workplaces source: the authors after [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].

Space	Behavioral/Functional Intent	Design Considerations and Spatial Characteristics
Open Office Workspace	Supports awareness and distributed interaction while maintaining acceptable distraction control and team visibility	High visual connectivity and moderate-to-high integration support awareness and spontaneous interaction. Movement permeability should be balanced to reduce cross-traffic distraction. Controlled clustering and graded depth from the main circulation enhance concentration performance.
Private Offices	Enhances privacy, cognitive focus, and controlled access; reduces unintended movement penetration	Lower global integration and limited connectivity improve privacy and cognitive focus. Increased topological depth from main routes supports acoustic and visual control. Low choice values reduce unintended penetration and interruption.
Meeting Rooms	Enables planned gatherings with controlled accessibility and a clear spatial hierarchy	Moderate integration with selective accessibility is preferred. Connectivity should support wayfinding without through-movement. Entrance visibility and functional clustering with team zones improve usability and booking efficiency.
Collaborative/Informal Areas	Maximizes encounter probability, co-presence, and knowledge exchange near movement nodes	High local integration and high choice values increase encounter probability and knowledge exchange. Strong co-visibility and adjacency to movement nodes enhance interaction frequency. Amenity-based clustering increases dwell time.
Circulation Spaces	Acts as the primary movement distributor and orientation structure within the layout	High choice and connectivity values define the primary movement structure. Integration hierarchy should differentiate main and secondary routes. Visual continuity improves spatial cognition and navigation efficiency.
Support Spaces	Provides operational support functions with minimal social occupancy; reduces interference with primary work and collaboration areas; supports short-duration, task-oriented use.	Prefer low integration and low choice values to limit through-movement; moderate connectivity for accessibility without attracting flow; greater topological depth from primary work zones; controlled visibility and partial enclosure to reduce noise and visual distraction; clustered near but not within primary circulation spines.

is grounded in established space syntax principles that associate configurational properties such as integration, connectivity, and movement potential with patterns of co-presence, privacy, interaction, and task performance. It is further informed by prior research on workplace spatial typologies. The matrix is used in this study as an interpretive guide that links quantitative configurational metrics with functional spatial roles, supporting transparent comparison between scenarios while maintaining theoretical grounding.

A thorough summary of the different types of office spaces is given in

Table 2. Degrees of space syntax measures based on the function of office space (reference matrix). Source: the authors after [52,53].

Space Type	Space Syntax Measures
	IN	CH	CO	CC
Open office space	High	Moderate	High	Moderate
	To ensure these primary work areas are accessible and well-connected.	To balance accessibility with the need for focused individual work.	To promote movement and interaction between workstations and teams.	To balance integration and separation between work areas.
Close offices	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
	To balance privacy and accessibility.	To balance accessibility with the need for focused individual work.	To maintain a sense of enclosure and minimize disturbance.	To preserve a sense of seclusion while minimizing interruption.
Meeting Rooms	High	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
	To make these spaces easily accessible from the main office areas.	To ensure meeting rooms are on key circulation paths.	To allow for controlled access and privacy during meetings.	To encourage focused interaction within the meeting space.
Collaborative spaces	High	Moderate	High	High
	To encourage spontaneous interactions and serendipitous encounters.	Suitable for spaces used by smaller teams or those requiring a balance between focus and adaptability	To facilitate movement and social exchange between employees.	To create a sense of community and cohesion.
Support spaces	Moderate	Low	Moderate	low
	To balance accessibility with the need for focused work.	These spaces are not intended to be on primary circulation routes.	To allow for efficient access while maintaining some privacy.	To allow for efficient movement and access.
Circulation spaces	High	High	High	low
	To seamlessly connect different functional areas, fostering a sense of openness.	To cater to individual preferences and activity needs.	To ensure smooth and efficient movement within the office.	These spaces are designed for movement.

. It describes the study of the space syntax measures that go along with it. These values, which serve as a reference matrix later, are obtained from the built-in characteristics and functional nature of each area. The reference matrix presented in the table was developed to define desirable values for each syntactic measure according to office space types. Its theoretical foundation is based on core principles of space syntax, including topological depth, visual control, and movement hierarchy, which have been shown to influence human spatial behavior in office environments. Empirical support for the matrix derives from previous studies on office typologies and kinetic interior design applications. This matrix is intended as a comparative evaluation tool, not as a normative prescription, and allows for systematic assessment of how different kinetic strategies affect configurational properties of office spaces.

The thresholds presented in

Table 3. Empirical value ranges for space syntax metrics in office layout analysis. Source: the authors after [2,3,4].

Space Syntax Measures	Low	Moderate	High	Notes on Interpretation
Integration	0.40–0.79	0.80–1.19	≥1.20	Higher values indicate greater configurational accessibility and shallower topological depth. Values are relative to system size and normalization method.
Choice	0.00–0.49	0.50–1.49	≥1.50	Represents movement potential and through-movement probability. High values typically correspond to primary circulation routes.
Connectivity	1–3	4–6	≥7	Indicates the number of directly connected spaces. Higher values reflect stronger local permeability.
Clustering Coefficient	0.00–0.29	0.30–0.59	≥0.60	Reflects local enclosure and grouping tendency. Higher values indicate stronger spatial clustering.

are derived from normalized value distributions commonly observed in office space syntax studies. As configurational measures are relative to system size, network density, and analytical radius, these ranges should be interpreted comparatively within the analyzed dataset rather than as absolute universal standards. The reference matrix was developed through a synthesis of spatial behavior studies, office typology literature, and commonly reported interpretations of space syntax metrics in workplace environments.

4. Case Study Selection

As indicated in

Table 4. The selected case study data. Source: the authors.

Type	Office Building of Port Said University
Position	The third floor of the building. (constructed in the 1970s)
Geometrical properties
Notes	Include the ground and three typical floors. The floor area is 506 m2. The floor (ground & typical floors) almost contains a main lobby, conference rooms, and cell staff rooms.

, the Port Said University office building in Egypt has been chosen to continue the case study. Three primary elements are considered throughout the selection process:

• The case study should be a building that correctly represents traditional methods of building.
• The analytical process can be greatly improved by having photographic documentation and pertinent data readily accessible, as well as by collaborating effectively with government agencies.
• It was built ten or more years ago to enable the observation of two essential elements: the difficulties presented by people using space over time and any modifications made to the structure while it is in use.

The spatial analysis was conducted using DepthmapX version 0.7.0. The key parameters selected include the metric used for axis analysis, angular segment settings, and connectivity thresholds, which were chosen to capture meaningful patterns of spatial integration, choice, connectivity, and clustering coefficient. These settings are consistent with previous space syntax studies and allow for replicable and comparable analysis of office layouts. The rationale for these choices is to ensure that the syntactic measures accurately reflect functional spatial relationships within the office environment and support the comparative evaluation of the kinetic interior strategies.

The two primary circulation patterns in this binary spatial structure are represented by the red and blue axes in the IN analysis, as illustrated in Figure 3. The red axis is a central movement core that is easily accessible from all building parts. However, this over-dependence on a single circulation axis has led to crowding and uncertainty about direction. Accessibility is reduced by the less obvious blue axis, requiring more complex and time-consuming control pathways.

By focusing on spatial hierarchy, the CH graph shows a distinct division in circulation patterns. High human circulation is shown by a high density of crossovers along the main red axis, which divides a specific spatial zone from the rest of the building. Conversely, areas with lower values, indicated in blue, exhibit an outer circulation pattern, where movement occurs around space instead of through it. This architectural design creates a certain level of isolation for deeper enclosed office areas.

The CO measure highlights high accessibility values at the intersections of opposing entrances along the main corridor, with a gradient of growing connection towards the conclusion of the path. The other spatial zones have much lower connection results in contrast. It gives open and collaborative workspaces greater rankings, meeting spaces, and support services with lower values. However, based on the current spatial organization, low CO concentrations are common in most areas.

The CC graph shows low value for closed workspaces and meeting areas in the existing arrangement. Even when collaborative workplaces also display moderate values, the results fall short of the higher values provided in the reference matrix. In conclusion, the graph displays a slight weakness in the CC in contrast to the more obvious flaws in the CO graph.

5. The Proposed Alternatives Using Kinetic-Based Design Strategies

Figure 4 presents the outcomes of ST1, detailing the various kinetic techniques. independent structures and modules, separation between areas that are permanent and those that are not, as well as the use of mobile furniture and partitions. PA1-a serves as a baseline representation of the initial state, while PA1-b illustrates the subsequent state following the repositioning of movable elements.

Below is an explanation of how to apply the kinetic techniques of the first strategy to the case study.

• Independent structures and modules: using sliding partitions that are not related to the main structure of the building. Using rolled fabrics to isolate the collaborative workspace.
• The division into permanent and non-permanent zones: fixed permanent zones for management, meeting, and service areas, while open, private, and collaborative workspaces offer flexibility to accommodate diverse user needs.
• Usage of movable partitions and furniture: The incorporation of foldable partitions between office units facilitates a seamless transformation from open-plan layouts to private work environments.

Figure 5 presents the outcomes of ST2 (generalization and personalization), detailing the various kinetic techniques.

Below is an explanation of how to apply the kinetic techniques of the second strategy to the case study.

• The consistency of the plan: the spatial layout adopts a strip design, where spaces are consistently distributed on both sides of the main corridors.
• The ability to link several areas with one another: foldable walls expand usable space by connecting adjacent areas, allowing for flexible configurations to accommodate additional functions.

Usage of mobile technologies and sections: foldable wall units are not fixed to walls or floors; they can be moved to any other spaces. Figure 6 presents the outcomes of ST3 (multi-functional spaces), detailing the various kinetic techniques.

Below is an explanation of how to apply the kinetic techniques of the third strategy to the case study.

• Open plan: The office design adopts an open-plan layout, eschewing fixed walls to promote spatial connectivity and foster a sense of collaboration.
• Similar spaces: symmetrical design of flexible and adjustable furniture to accommodate workspace needs based on demand.
• Separating adjacent parts: employing sliding flexible partitions on a ceiling-mounted track to separate adjacent spaces.
• Extensible parts: flexible and expandable furniture to accommodate a larger number of employees.
• Convertible walls: sliding walls capable of transforming into temporary bases to provide break areas for employees during work.

6. Results

Following the introduction of the PAs of office spaces using kinetic-based design strategies and subsequent scenario development compatible with the chosen analysis software (DepthmapX 0.7.0), this study proceeds with the extraction and evaluation of the analysis results. This stage will involve the examination of twelve graphs, four graphs for each PA. Through comparative analysis with the reference matrix established in

Table 5. The resulting simulation graphs for the three kinetic-based design strategies. Source: the authors.

SSMs	PA1 Graphs
	PA1-a		PA1-b
Axial measures	IN
	CH
Visual measures	CO
	CC
SSMs	PA2 Graphs
	PA2-a		PA2-b
Axial measures	IN
	CH
Visual measures	CO
	CC
SSMs	PA3 Graphs
	PA3-a		PA3-b
Axial measures	IN
	CH
Visual measures	CO
	CC

, the effectiveness of the PAs in achieving the desired space syntax measures will be assessed.

Table 6. Space Syntax Analysis Results.

PAs	Scenario		Space Syntax Measures
		Spaces	Axial Measures		Visual Measures
			IN	CH	CO	CC
PA1	PA1-a	Open office	0.35	1.10	6	0.45
		Close offices	0.40	0.25	2.50	0.7
		Meeting rooms	1.00	0.34	2.50	0.45
		Collaborative	0.50	0.45	7.20	0.33
		Support	0.4	0.30	7	0.50
		Circulation	0.80	2	3	0.5
	PA1-b	Close offices	0.85	3	2.75	0.75
		Meeting rooms	1	0.8	5.75	0.44
		Collaborative	0.5	0.32	4.30	0.68
		Support	0.4	0.22	2.0	0.4
		Circulation	1.15	1	5.45	0.21
PA2	PA2-a	Close offices	0.75	0.25	0.88	0.86
		Meeting rooms	1.10	1.18	4.50	0.45
		Collaborative	0.5	0.35	7.15	0.77
		Support	0.39	0.66	0.25	0.43
		Circulation	0.5	2.10	8.0	0.25
	PA2-b	Open office	1.85	3.0	6.10	0.45
		Close offices	0.85	3	2.75	0.86
		Meeting rooms	1.32	0.34	2.50	0.44
		Collaborative	0.50	0.35	5.75	0.55
		Support	1.2	0.24	0.27	0.45
		Circulation	1.46	1.35	3.1	0.44
PA3	PA3-a	Open office	1.99	1.15	6.80	0.51
		Close offices	0.40	3.1	0.78	0.76
		Meeting rooms	1.12	1.15	4.45	0.47
		Collaborative	0.56	0.34	5.66	0.58
		Support	1.21	0.25	0.28	0.45
		Circulation	1.15	1.35	5.45	0.44
	PA3-b	Open office	1.87	1.15	6.78	1.5
		Close offices	0.85	0.89	2.75	0.86
		Meeting rooms	1.12	1.15	3.85	0.62
		Collaborative	0.5	0.68	7.15	0.33
		Support	0.39	0.66	0.27	0.31

presents a quantitative comparative analysis of three kinetic strategies applied within the office environment. By utilizing Space Syntax measures, specifically Integration (IN), Choice (CH), Control (CO), and Clustering Coefficient (CC), this data illustrates how the transition from static configurations (Scenario A) to active kinetic states (Scenario B) reconfigures the spatial logic. The objective is to evaluate the efficiency of kinetic technology in enhancing spatial permeability and visual connectivity, aligning the physical environment with the dynamic functional requirements specified in the Reference Matrix.

Building on earlier studies of various kinetic-based design strategies, this study provides an in-depth assessment of the results related to each strategy, and the degree to which these scenarios match or go away from the spatial formation criteria specified in the reference matrix (Table 2) for office environments will be carefully analyzed.

Table 7. A comprehensive assessment of axial and visual graphs for each scenario of the three strategies. Source: the authors.

PAs	Scenarios		Space Syntax Measures
		Spaces	Axial Measures		Visual Measures
			IN	CH	CO	CC
PA1	PA1-a	Open office
		Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
		Circulation
	PA1-b	Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
		Circulation
PA2	PA2-a	Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
		Circulation
	PA2-b	Open office
		Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
		Circulation
PA3	PA3-a	Open office
		Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
		Circulation
	PA3-b	Open office
		Close offices
		Meeting rooms
		Collaborative
		Support
Achieved			Semi-achieved		Not-achieved

shows the overall results of all spaces for each of the six scenarios.

After tracking the extent of achievement of each measure in each of the different scenarios of strategies, attention will be drawn to a set of relationships between design determinants and the results of SSMs specific to the theory of space syntax.

7. Discussions

To identify the change resulting from the application of each kinetic-based design strategy individually due to the transformation of the original scenarios (a) into the secondary scenarios (b), comprehensive monitoring of the change in measures across all spaces was conducted. To facilitate the calculation of the change, values were assigned for each change.

Figure 7 illustrates the assignment of change values between the scenarios in each strategy for the top ten spaces in each alternative. The differences for each measure will be aggregated to determine the extent to which the strategies impact the creation of differences in spatial characteristics and to shed light on kinetic-based design strategies that result in the highest and lowest differences in space syntax measures of spaces.

As a result of the preceding analyses, SSMs of the spaces resulting from the implementation of kinetic-based design strategies may not necessarily exhibit similar values across all resulting scenarios. Here lies the necessity for a step to comprehend the characteristics of these spaces through theories predicting human behavior, which should be included among the essential design stages. A minor alteration in the configurational characteristics of the spaces can immediately lead to significant variations in the resulting properties.

The above analysis led to the following results: Firstly, the measure with the highest relative proportion in distinguishing among the three strategy scenarios is IN, indicating that the value of IN is highly influenced by ongoing changes in designs, closely followed by CO. Secondly, the CH value varies slightly due to adjustments, followed by CC values, as shown in Figure 8.

To further interpret the configurational results in relation to human spatial behavior, the syntactic indicators can be discussed from a behavioral perspective as follows:

Changes in integration (IN) indicate how accessible different areas of the office are. An increase in IN in collaborative zones suggests improved connectivity, which may facilitate social interaction and team collaboration. From a behavioral perspective, higher integration values tend to support increased spatial accessibility and interaction potential, which aligns with theories of movement patterns and social encounters in spatial systems.

Changes in choice (CH) highlight potential movement flows; higher CH values in circulation spaces indicate optimized employee circulation pathways, reducing congestion. From a behavioral perspective, higher choice values indicate spaces that are more likely to be traversed during movement through the spatial system. Such locations tend to function as strategic paths that support circulation efficiency and increase the probability of informal encounters and spontaneous interaction among users.

Connectivity (CO) variations reveal the degree of direct links between workstations, influencing interaction opportunities and workflow efficiency. From a behavioral perspective, higher connectivity reflects spaces with a greater number of immediate visual or physical links to surrounding areas. This condition can enhance spatial awareness and facilitate short-range movement, enabling users to easily access adjacent work settings and support everyday functional activities.

Clustering coefficient (CC) changes reflect local network clustering, which can support focused work or privacy depending on spatial arrangement. From a behavioral perspective, higher clustering coefficient values suggest a stronger local interconnectedness between neighboring spaces. This spatial condition may support localized interaction patterns and create environments that encourage small-group communication and collaborative work activities.

The analysis of the three kinetic interior strategies demonstrates how each approach affects spatial configuration and functional performance in office spaces. For instance, Strategy 2 enhances collaborative zones through higher integration, Strategy 1 optimizes movement and circulation via increased choice values, and Strategies 2 and 3 support focused work through clustering. These insights provide practical guidance for office planning and interior design, allowing designers to select kinetic strategies that align with specific functional goals. Consequently, the study not only contributes to theoretical understanding but also offers actionable recommendations for implementing adaptive, user-centered, and performance-driven office interiors.

Overall, these syntactic changes translate into tangible functional implications, providing designers with actionable insights on how kinetic interventions impact spatial behavior and organizational performance.

Regarding the strategy with the highest variance in the values of the measures between its two scenarios, ST2 is the most divergent, as shown in Figure 9, while ST3 is the least divergent. When compared in terms of alignment with the reference measure matrix, ST2 emerges as the most congruent. Therefore, it can be concluded that the greater the disparities between the different scenarios presented by the strategy, the higher the likelihood of alignment with the reference design matrix.

It is important to note that these interpretations reflect configurational potentials derived from space syntax analysis, rather than observed behavioral outcomes. Further studies with post-occupancy evaluation are required to empirically validate these implications.

8. Recommended Kinetic-Based Design Process

The traditional and integrated kinetic technology design approaches are contrasted in Figure 10. Pre-design, design, documentation, and construction are the three primary phases of the conventional design process. It also includes influences in the design process. It is worth noting that the stages do not always require the building’s occupants’ participation. The design process may contain an additional stage in which numerous alternatives are presented, compared, and selected as the best option from the designer’s perspective. Based on the absence of spatial analysis, examining interrelationships between spatial components increases the probability of functional contrasts arising from spatial mismatches, incompatible circulation patterns, or incongruent user behaviours. Subsequent remedial actions, such as redesigning and demolition, often become necessary to rectify these issues, incurring high costs and disrupting operational continuity.

A suggested design process is proposed for design stages that incorporate a space syntax analysis phase, which consists of the same three main stages of the traditional design process, but is divided into separate stages to avoid the problems resulting from the absence of necessary analysis in the design process. Spatial analyses based on space syntactic theory are carried out using the required SSMs for measuring each space before and after the transformation, based on the many designs that arise from the application of kinetic technology in line with the strategies that are put into practice. Iterative changes are made to attain optimal results by converting every scenario into digital scenarios to reach a clear point and a comprehensive overview of all results. The difference between traditional and flexible design is found in the multidisciplinary nature of flexible design, resulting from innovative thinking and idea integration. In conclusion, there are several advantages to interdisciplinary collaboration in building design, such as improved communication, creativity, efficiency, and building performance. Including experts from many fields could improve the design’s functionality, sustainability, and inventiveness.

This study is based on a single office building case in Port Said, Egypt. It can restrict the findings’ applicability to different office typologies and cultural contexts. While the comparative evaluation framework provides valuable insights into the configurational impacts of kinetic interior strategies, further research across multiple case studies and post-occupancy evaluations is necessary to validate and generalize the observed patterns. Additionally, the absence of empirical behavioral data constrains the ability to directly link spatial changes in user experiences, which should be addressed in future studies.