Depends on the type of work being done. If you're looking at a lot of employees that need to do focused work like coding, then you need a place where they can shut their doors, but with adequate meeting space dedicated for their use. As a software engineer, I loathe the open floor plan because I cannot get anything done. (Struggling with that now and actively searching for a new job because of it.)
When I was in operations, having an open-ish war room with a few shared displays of monitors where everyone can talk was helpful during a crisis only. That is easily replicated with a good chat software like Slack, if the ops team needs to work around quieter groups. Outside of a crisis, the openness was only useful for gossiping. Of course, outside of a crisis OPs have a much more limited number of jobs because they exist to fix the crisis situations, so the extra chatter really helps the group cohesion under pressure.
I would suggest asking your teams to make formal recommendations as teams about their future work space. A command decision, no matter how well grounded in research, will devalue the needs of your people and lead to sub-optimal spaces. They are unique groups, and may not need to follow the "best" industrial patterns.
Also, don't let the managers overrun the conversation. Otherwise you will end up with spaces that make it easier to micromanage people rather than get work done. Panopticons, where management are in offices while workers are in highly exposed open spaces, lead to higher turn over every single time. You want spaces where people can work conveniently, not where managers can manage easily.