Data centres may be designed around machines, but Daniel Hunt, UK Country Head at Agilité, argues that overlooking the people responsible for operating them could have consequences for resilience, retention and performance.

The data centre conversation is often (understandably) dominated by power, cooling, resilience and, increasingly, AI-driven demand. After all, these are highly technical assets, designed to support critical digital infrastructure and operate continuously under immense pressure. But within these environments sits a quieter, often overlooked layer – the spaces designed for people.

Offices, control rooms, reception areas, welfare spaces, stores, testing zones and communal areas rarely command the same attention as the main data hall and, as such, are often considered later in the design process, once the primary technical requirements have been resolved. In many cases, the logic is understandable, given the data hall is where the core commercial and operational value sits.

However, treating the human layer as secondary can create problems that extend far beyond comfort or aesthetics. 

The people working inside data centres are not incidental to performance. Security teams, facilities managers, engineers, technicians and operational staff are responsible for maintaining uptime, managing risk and responding under pressure. Yet these are not conventional workplaces. They are mission-support environments and, when viewed in that way, the office, control room and welfare spaces become part of the operational system itself.

Low occupancy does not mean low importance

At first glance, it might appear that data centres require little in the way of workplace design. After all, occupancy levels are low compared with commercial offices, and the building’s primary purpose is clearly technical. But a smaller headcount does not reduce the importance of the working environment – if anything, in this scenario, it increases it.

When a small number of people are responsible for monitoring systems, managing incidents and maintaining critical operations, their ability to concentrate, communicate and recover matters enormously. That’s why decisions about comfort, clarity, adjacency and fatigue management during the design phase can influence alertness, error rates and responses under pressure once the space becomes operational.

It’s a sentiment that’s particularly important as the sector faces a growing skills challenge. Experienced data centre professionals are in high demand, and retention is becoming an operational issue in its own right. Salary will always matter, but the quality of the working environment also plays a role in whether people feel supported, respected and able to perform over the long term.

A poorly planned human layer can create avoidable friction – long routes between key areas, inadequate welfare provision, noisy or visually demanding control spaces, undersized stores, unclear wayfinding or meeting rooms that feel disconnected from the sophistication of the facility around them. Individually, these issues may appear small. Collectively, they create operational drag.

Control rooms are not standard offices

Control rooms are spaces which deserve particular attention. In many data centres, these areas are where vigilance, judgement and coordination come together. Teams may be monitoring multiple systems simultaneously, responding to alerts, coordinating interventions and communicating across technical and security functions. That level of cognitive intensity means control rooms should not be treated like standard office accommodation.

Comparable environments in other sectors already recognise this. Air traffic control centres, rail signalling hubs and energy network control rooms prioritise sightlines, lighting, acoustics, visual hierarchy and fatigue management because the work taking place in them depends on sustained concentration.

Although data centre control rooms are increasingly facing similar demands, when they are planned late, they can end up inheriting compromised adjacencies, limited daylight, poor acoustics or insufficient separation from circulation and support activity.

The design questions are practical. Can people see what they need to see? Can they communicate clearly without being distracted? Is the lighting appropriate for long shifts and screen-based work? Is there enough acoustic control? Are routes to technical areas, welfare spaces and escalation points clear and efficient? The aim is not to over-design these environments, but to remove unnecessary friction from work that already carries high responsibility.

Welfare is operational infrastructure

Welfare spaces are another area where priorities are changing. In large or remote data centre campuses, staff may not be able to leave freely during shifts, as security perimeters, location and operational requirements can make everyday choices – such as stepping out for food, fresh air or a change of scenery – much more difficult than in a typical workplace.

In that context, showers, lockers, rest areas, outdoor space and basic amenities should not be viewed as lifestyle extras, but as part of the infrastructure that supports employee wellbeing during long shifts, recovery and retention.

This is especially important in environments dominated by screens, systems and continuous monitoring. People need contrast. When colleagues step away from the data hall or control room, they often seek the opposite environment – somewhere calmer, softer, quieter or more open. This is where access to daylight, visual calm, acoustic relief and fresh air can help reduce fatigue and support cognitive recovery.

Good welfare provision also sends a message, telling staff that the building has been designed with their experience in mind, not simply the equipment they maintain. In a competitive labour market, that matters.

The hidden importance of back-of-house space

The human layer is not only desks, meeting rooms and staff areas. It also includes the operational spaces that keep the facility working, such as goods-in, unpacking, testing, storage, waste handling and logistics.

These areas are easy to underestimate when pressure on square metres is high, but when not properly integrated, they tend to encroach on the workplace later. Temporary storage becomes permanent, waste disrupts circulation and deliveries risk clashing with secure routes.

For project teams, logistics should therefore be treated as a spatial planning input from the outset. Material flows, secure routes, storage needs, waste streams and testing requirements should be mapped early, before offices and welfare areas absorb unresolved operational pressure.

Seamless security and wayfinding

Security is a significant part of data centre design, and layered access control is fundamental to the safe running of the facility. But security is also spatial design – it choreographs movement and shapes behaviour.

A well-designed security journey is legible and proportionate; people understand why controls exist and how to move through them. A poorly sequenced journey can feel repetitive, hostile or confusing, even if it is technically effective.

The same principle applies more broadly, as clear wayfinding, consistent design language and logical adjacencies reduce hesitation and error. In complex, high-security environments, clarity is not cosmetic, but can be a real risk-reduction tool.

When a building feels coherent, users are more likely to trust the operation behind it and, for clients and investors, the human spaces are often the only parts of the building they experience directly. Reception areas, meeting rooms and controlled views into operational environments all contribute to how the facility is understood. If those spaces feel considered, seamless and aligned with the technical promise of the building, they reinforce credibility.

Fit-out is part of performance

Planning the human layer also affects delivery, and fit-out in or around a data centre is not the same as fitting out a standard office. Work may take place near live environments, with controls around dust, vibration, access, power and sequencing – but the potential impact of that work on a data centre is significantly higher.

That’s exactly why office, welfare and support spaces cannot be treated as a finishing stage detached from the wider programme. Their readiness depends on commissioning, access, services and operational procedures, and project teams need to consider human occupation alongside infrastructure readiness.

On reflection, data centres may be designed for machines, but they are still operated, secured, maintained and experienced by people. If the sector is serious about resilience, it cannot afford to forget them.