To choose their first offices, a start-up or SME should first assess four factors: the number of people who will actually be on site, visibility over upcoming recruitment, the full budget and how much day-to-day management the company wants to keep in-house. A private office in a coworking space suits small teams looking for an immediate setup. A managed office provides greater autonomy while outsourcing most of the management. A traditional lease is better suited to a company whose needs are sufficiently stable.
Key takeaways
Start-ups and SMEs may follow different paths, but the decision-making framework is largely the same when choosing their first offices. What changes most is the weight given to flexibility, cost, services or stability.
The most important decisions to secure are those that would be difficult or expensive to reverse: location, commitment period, overall capacity and the configuration of the space.
Conversely, some choices are better left open at the outset. The first few months make it possible to observe actual usage before investing further or locking the organisation into a fixed setup.
Private office in a coworking space, managed office or traditional lease: which should you choose?
All three formats can work for a first office, but they do not suit the same level of maturity or involve the same constraints. Before even arranging visits, this comparison can help identify which type of solution is most consistent with the company’s current organisation.
| Format | When it is particularly suitable | What it provides | Point to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private office in a coworking space | Small team, fast move-in, still limited visibility over the coming months | Enclosed office, shared equipment and services, very little setup to manage | Less autonomy and personalisation depending on the workspace |
| Managed office | Team looking for a more autonomous workspace without taking on all the property management | Equipped private space, integrated services and most day-to-day operations handled for the company | Compare the overall cost and the contract’s ability to evolve, not just the price per workstation |
| Traditional lease | Company whose headcount, working patterns and expected occupancy period are sufficiently stable | Greater control over the premises, fit-out and how the space is used | Commitment, fit-out, equipment and management place more responsibility on the company |
That does not mean choosing a format based on its label alone. Two companies of the same size may reach different decisions depending on how often people are on site, recruitment plans, confidentiality requirements or the amount of time they can devote to office management.
Start-ups and SMEs: the same criteria, but not the same level of visibility
Start-ups and SMEs do not always begin from the same position. A young company may see rapid changes in headcount, depend on recruitment or funding that is still uncertain and frequently adjust how it operates. An SME moving into its first autonomous offices may have greater visibility, but it also has to take on property, logistics and management matters that may previously have been non-existent or largely outsourced.
When choosing first offices, however, the essential questions remain broadly the same: how many people will actually be on site, how far ahead should recruitment be anticipated, what total budget is acceptable, what needs to remain private and how much management does the company want to handle itself?
The difference therefore lies less in the criteria themselves than in how much weight each company gives them. A start-up whose headcount may change quickly will often place greater value on reversibility. A more stable SME may prioritise a long-lasting setup, a more personalised organisation or greater control over its premises.
The right time: when a temporary setup starts creating more friction than simplicity
There is no precise headcount at which a start-up or SME should automatically move into dedicated offices.
The real trigger is usually when the lightweight setup that worked at the beginning requires more and more effort to keep functioning: finding a room for an important meeting, making multiple bookings for team days, locating a suitable place to receive a candidate or client, or handling confidential calls in less-than-ideal conditions.
Each of these constraints may remain manageable on its own. Together, they change the equation.
This is often when the office stops being a simple convenience and becomes an organisational tool: an identifiable place that is available without a new booking each time, where the company can work, meet, welcome visitors and keep certain equipment.
For teams working largely remotely, this shift deserves particular attention: the absence of a shared place can start weighing on the organisation well before the company actually runs out of desks. Coordination, recruitment, team time and client relationships can then become more useful indicators than headcount alone.
Leaving an incubator: moving from a supported environment to your first offices
Leaving an incubator is a particular stage in the journey of a young company. The team has already become used to working in a structured environment, with services and often a wider community around it, but it now has to choose a setting that offers greater autonomy.
At this stage, a traditional lease may come too early. Recruitment is not always fully secured, attendance patterns may still change and the team may only just be discovering how much space it really needs and which types of areas matter most. The issue is therefore not simply to “find premises”, but to move from a supported environment to an autonomous office setup without losing the ability to adjust.
The journey of Dimension, a young company specialising in artificial intelligence and data, illustrates this progression well. The two founders initially took a nomadic workstation at Hiptown Lille to keep costs down when launching the business. The company then joined an incubator before returning to Hiptown once its needs had become clearer.
When it returned, Dimension chose an enclosed office fitted out with three workstations. Beyond the workspace itself, the company also benefited from informal collaborations with other businesses on site, including companies operating in sectors different from its own.
This journey shows that a first office does not have to be a definitive property decision. The format can evolve as the company matures: a nomadic workstation at launch, an incubator during a support phase, then a private office once the need for a more stable base becomes clearer.
Think of your first offices as a V1, not as your final headquarters
A first office can quickly carry a lot of expectations. It needs to welcome the team, give the company a more established image, support recruitment and sometimes embody an important stage in its development.
That symbolic dimension can encourage a business to look immediately for a place that represents the company it hopes to become. Yet taking too much space “to allow for growth”, choosing an address mainly for prestige or financing a highly specific fit-out from day one means committing resources based on assumptions that may still be fragile.
A first office can instead be approached as a V1: developed enough to meet current needs, but designed to evolve.
It should provide good working conditions, a coherent location and enough capacity for developments that are already credible. It does not need to accommodate every possible future use from day one.
This does not mean choosing a second-rate solution or treating the premises as a temporary stopgap. It means allowing the real estate setup to evolve at the same pace as the company, rather than trying to skip several stages at once.
Distinguish hard-to-reverse decisions from simple adjustments
Not every characteristic of an office carries the same level of risk. Some can be adjusted after a few weeks. Others will shape the team’s experience or the company’s finances for much longer.
| Decision | Ease of change | Why it matters from the outset |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Low | It determines commuting and accessibility throughout the occupancy period |
| Commitment period and contract terms | Low | A poor choice can be expensive or difficult to reverse |
| Overall capacity of the space | Low to medium | The office can quickly become too small or remain oversized for too long |
| Number of meeting rooms / ability to work privately | Medium | A poor configuration can quickly create conflicts between uses |
| Number of assigned workstations | High | The setup can evolve as attendance patterns become clearer |
| Furniture | High | It can generally be moved, supplemented or replaced |
| Decoration and visual identity | High | They can be developed gradually |
| Internal rules for using the space | Very high | They are often best adjusted after observing how the office is actually used |
This distinction helps focus attention on the right issues. It is more important to check that a location remains accessible to most of the team or that an exit from the contract would be manageable than to decide immediately on the permanent position of every desk.
In other words, the harder a decision is to reverse, the more thoroughly it should be challenged before signing.
Separate what must be secured from what should be tested
A first office does not require every decision to be made at the same time. The most useful approach is to distinguish what must work immediately, what should be observed and what can deliberately wait.
What must work from day one
Reliable internet, straightforward access, good working conditions, a minimum level of privacy, enough capacity to bring the team together when needed and a practical location are not good candidates for experimentation.
These are the fundamentals. If they are missing, the office immediately creates new problems.
What the first few months should help you observe
Other choices are better tested against reality. Should everyone have an assigned workstation? Would a second meeting room really be used? Do employees all come in on the same days? Are the phone booths constantly occupied? Does the team receive as many visitors as expected?
After a few weeks, assumptions become observable patterns:
- which days actually concentrate attendance;
- which rooms are used most often;
- how many visitors are actually received;
- where noise or confidentiality issues appear;
- which areas regularly remain empty;
- which matters consume the most management time.
These observations can lead to simple adjustments: moving desks, changing attendance rules, dedicating a room to a specific use or changing how meeting rooms are used. They may also confirm a more structural need: an extension, an adjacent office or a different configuration at the next decision point.
First offices therefore have a learning function that is often underestimated: they allow the company to understand more precisely how it actually uses space.
What can deliberately wait
Highly developed decoration, rarely used equipment, an extra room intended for a still-hypothetical purpose or several workstations reserved for unconfirmed hires can all be postponed.
Deferring these decisions is not a lack of ambition. It is a way to let actual usage guide investment over time rather than tying up resources on the basis of assumptions.
Put the project through a crash test before signing
A workspace may perfectly match the scenario described in the brief and become far less suitable as soon as that scenario changes slightly.
Before approving a location, it is therefore better not to ask only “does this work today?”, but to test a few realistic deviations.
| If, six months from now… | Question to ask before signing |
|---|---|
| Three hires arrive earlier than expected | Where will they sit without removing an essential use of the space? |
| Recruitment is delayed | Does the cost remain acceptable with part of the capacity unused? |
| The team comes in one extra day per week | Will the busiest days still be comfortable? |
| Client meetings increase | Can visitors be received without taking over the main working areas? |
| Confidential work becomes more frequent | Are there enough enclosed spaces? |
| The company ultimately wants to stay longer | Can the location still support the way the company operates? |
The point of this exercise is to move beyond the ideal scenario. A company does not need a configuration capable of absorbing every possible development. It does, however, need to understand the consequences of a realistic departure from its current forecast.
If headcount is the main uncertainty, this thinking can be taken further by looking at how to adapt office space to the size of the team and its actual attendance patterns. This helps avoid confusing useful room for growth with floor space that is being paid for too early.
Flexibility then becomes concrete: it is valuable not because it is “flexible” in the abstract, but because it protects the company against a scenario that could genuinely happen.
Decide what must be private and what can be shared
One very practical question can help refine the choice of format: which functions does the company absolutely need to control itself, and which can be shared or outsourced?
A team handling sensitive information may want to secure its day-to-day working environment and have access to enclosed rooms. It does not necessarily need its own large kitchen, a fully dedicated reception area or several rooms that are rarely used.
Another company may receive few visitors but regularly run collaborative workshops. It may prefer a more compact private area complemented by high-quality shared facilities.
This approach avoids automatically paying for every function within the company’s own leased area. More importantly, it brings the comparison at the beginning of the article back into focus with more precise criteria: the right format depends on where the company wants to draw the line between what it wants to control and what it would rather not have to manage.
To explore this comparison in more detail, it may be useful to look at how to balance flexibility, services and budget control according to the company’s own level of maturity.
Protect cash flow, but also the team’s capacity to manage the office
A first office creates two types of cost: those that appear on invoices and those that consume internal time.
Deposit, furniture, fit-out, moving costs, internet, cleaning and insurance all need to be included in the calculation. But the company should also consider who will manage suppliers, access, technical issues, orders and day-to-day adjustments.
In a small organisation, that workload does not disappear: it is absorbed by someone whose main role is usually something else.
The budget question therefore has two sides:
how much do we want to invest in the space, and how much of our organisation do we want to devote to running it?
A more integrated solution may cost more while avoiding several upfront expenses or a succession of internal tasks. Conversely, managing premises directly can make sense when the company already has the resources, suppliers and visibility needed to do so.
To compare options on an equivalent basis, it is better to think in terms of the full cost of office space rather than rent or price per workstation alone: fit-out, equipment, services, management time and exit conditions can significantly change the equation.
Choose a location for the team you have, not the company you want to project
First offices contribute to the company’s image. But an impressive address quickly becomes a poor investment if it makes everyday attendance more difficult.
A natural bias is to prioritise proximity to the founders’ homes, a well-known address or a district associated with the company’s ecosystem. These criteria can make sense, but they should be tested against real commuting patterns.
Which employees will come in most often? Where do they live? Which transport links do they use? Do clients regularly visit the office? Are the profiles the company plans to recruit concentrated in a particular area?
A slightly less prestigious but much better-connected location can become a stronger recruitment and retention tool.
For a first office, practicality experienced several times a week is often worth more than the impression created by the address on the day of the visit.
Seven questions to answer before you start visiting offices
Before opening listings or arranging the first visits, the project should be expressible through a few clear answers:
- How many people will actually be on site at the same time? Total headcount is not enough if attendance patterns differ.
- How much visibility do we have over recruitment? Which positions are confirmed and which are still hypothetical?
- What full budget can we allocate to office space? Rent or subscription, fit-out, equipment, services and management time should be considered together.
- How much management do we want to retain? Do we want to manage suppliers and premises directly, or outsource part of the day-to-day workload?
- Which functions absolutely need to remain private? Daily work, meetings, confidentiality, reception?
- What change from our current scenario do we need to be able to absorb? Faster or slower recruitment, higher attendance, new uses?
- Which decisions would be expensive or impossible to reverse after signing?
If these answers are clear, the comparison changes immediately. The decision is no longer based only on floor area, price or a first impression. Each option can be assessed against the specific role it will need to play over the coming months.
This framework does not replace the other checks that help avoid common mistakes when searching for office space. It mainly helps the company arrive at its first visits with a project that is already clear enough to compare different options on the same basis.
Not sure whether you need a private office, a managed office or a traditional lease? Talk to our team to compare your requirements with the capacities and locations currently available.
