The concept of ‘flexibility’ as a design aspiration is often discussed in architectural literature.  However, it is invariably the facilities management profession that inherits the building solution: it is these professionals who incur the consequences of inflexible or flexible solutions.  In this respect, buildings are not a ‘one-shot’ process, but an evolving solution.  A flexible building design is one that can adapt in response to changing circumstances.  However, the dilemma for the designer is in anticipating likely changes.  As such, the designer acquires the role of ‘futurologist’; ‘technological forecaster’ or ‘foresight’ analyst.  The purpose of this paper is to present the facilities management perspective of flexibility.  It indicates how designers can assist in producing a more ‘pliable’ design solution.  It suggests that the concept of ‘universal flexibility’ is both technically and economically unachievable.  Design for flexibility requires an understanding of multiple future states, both possible and probable.  No more is this apparent than in the arena of office design.  Currently, flexibility is achieved through over-specification with respect to mechanical and electrical plant sizing, floor area provision and floor loading amongst other examples.  The consequence of such overprovision is reduced efficiencies of plant, high occupancy costs and unnecessary maintenance.  For many commercial mission- critical facilities this is seen as a price worth paying.   The cost of disruption caused by intractable design limitations (e.g. insufficient cooling load) quickly offset the added cost burden of overcapacity.   But in a world of environmental responsibility, this approach to flexibility presents a dilemma – simply ‘building for growth’ is both costly and unimaginative.  In the era of sustainable design, facilities managers are looking for more ingenious approaches to flexibility: approaches that more reliably reflect the future demands of buildings.  This paper discusses examples of change which are impacting design solutions in a fundamental way.  It puts forward a new framework for dealing with flexibility in building design based on the original work of Mintzberg.   Fundamentally, it recognises the ‘emergent’ nature of design solutions through their entire life.  To achieve ‘change-readiness’ conceptual tools need to be developed to allow dialogue between facilities managers and architectural designers.  These tools rely on a ‘layered’ understanding of the design solution space.  Exploration of such solutions depends on an approach that connects the conceptual level and the concrete level of organisational transformation.The concept of flexibility as a design aspiration is often discussed in architectural literature.  However, it is invariably the facilities management profession that inherits the building solution: it is these professionals who incur the consequences of inflexible or flexible solutions. In this respect, buildings are not a one-shot process, but an evolving solution. A flexible building design is one that can adapt in response to changing circumstances. However, the dilemma for the designer is in anticipating likely changes. As such, the designer acquires the role of futurologist; “technological forecaster” or foresight analyst. The purpose of this paper is to present the facilities management perspective of flexibility. It indicates how designers can assist in producing a more pliable design solution. It suggests that the concept of universal flexibility is both technically and economically unachievable. Design for flexibility requires an understanding of multiple future states, both possible and probable.