Our four areas of expertise
A lean build, a commitment from the first brief.
Office fit-outs account for more than 8% of a company's carbon footprint, according to ADEME. Our response: scope the real need from space-planning, extend what already exists rather than demolish, select low-carbon materials and track every kilogram of waste leaving the site.
Method comparison
Design & Build: four trades, a single point of contact.
Office fit-out can be run as separate trade packages or as an integrated method. Here are the two approaches set side by side on eight key delivery criteria.
Separate trade packages
Architect + engineering firm + general contractor + suppliers + works coordinator
- Points of contact
- 5 to 9
- Lead time for 1,000 sqm
- 20 to 26 weeks
- Price commitment
- Initial estimate, adjusted during design
- Schedule commitment
- Penalties diluted across packages
- Trade coordination
- External works coordinator or in-house property team
- Furniture and fit-out
- Separate contract, delivered after handover
- Tertiary decree
- Audit assigned to a dedicated engineering firm
- Carbon assessment
- Optional, separate provider
Kytom Design & Build
A single firm, proprietary 12-week method
- Point of contact
- 1, embedded in the project-management firm
- Lead time for 1,000 sqm
- 12 weeks
- Price commitment
- Lump-sum commitment from signature
- Schedule commitment
- Contractual penalty on furnished handover
- Trade coordination
- Integrated management, proprietary method
- Furniture and fit-out
- Included, furnished handover on day one
- Tertiary decree
- Cerema benchmark applied from the programming stage
- Carbon assessment
- ADEME methodology built into the design
Lead times and thresholds referenced for 1,000 sqm in a French region, excluding prior administrative contingencies.
Qualify your project
4 success conditions for the integrated method.
The success of a Design & Build project rests on structuring trade-offs that are often poorly assessed. Here is the Kytom method to make the decision objective before the first euro is committed.
Structuring conditions
The 4 criteria that justify the integrated approach
- Technical complexity Relevant above 1,500 sqm or on multi-site projects.
- Level of constraints Occupied sites, tight deadlines, specific standards (data centres, laboratories).
- Programme maturity A brief that is too fixed limits co-design; a brief that is too vague creates drift.
- Contractual trade-off Does carrying the technical risk justify a possible premium on costs?
On large office programmes with heavy operating constraints, the integrated approach holds the schedule and the budget where separate packages drift.
3 mistakes to avoid
The recurring biases that compromise integrated projects
- Launching the tender too early Without a technical diagnosis, critical interfaces are underestimated (mechanical systems, acoustics, fire safety).
- Neglecting the framing phase 15 days of collaborative workshops avoid 3 weeks of delay during construction.
- Mis-scoping the perimeter Including signage and furniture creates value. Adding IT and security often generates extra costs with no schedule benefit.
The final performance of an integrated project is decided first in the upstream audit of constraints.
Evaluation method
4 steps to make the decision objective
- Constraints audit 2 weeks: analysis of technical interfaces, operating constraints and regulatory risk level.
- Scenario modelling 1 week: comparison of traditional vs integrated mode on schedule, cost and risk.
- Defining the optimal perimeter Identify the trades where integration adds the most value: partitions, ceilings, electrical, HVAC.
- Contractual structuring Risk allocation and setting of validation milestones.
An upstream evaluation phase, modest against the overall budget, strongly conditions the final performance of the project.
Kytom benchmarks
The foundation of the integrated method
The best-performing projects combine high technical complexity with strong operating constraints.
Observatory
The real cost of fit-out, measured project after project.
Budgeting a fit-out on sector averages invites overruns: official construction indices average the entire building industry, while interior fit-out concentrates its budget on a handful of trades whose prices follow their own trajectory.
That is why Kytom maintains its own benchmark: the Observatory of office fit-out costs. Every delivered project feeds a base of signed quotes, from which we derive a quarterly index cross-referenced with French INSEE indices and a cost per square metre that is measured, not estimated.
This benchmark informs all four of our practices: budgets committed at signature, decisions grounded in observed prices, and a cost trajectory we see moving before official indices do.
Explore the Observatory →
