Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Commuting Kills

wordfence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Commuting Kills

#51

Post by lukeschlather »

rayiner wrote: post #38
munificent wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works OK, but it increases the costs of reorganizing teams and projects. If your project structure changes frequently, it really helps if that just involves moving people from one room to another and not having to tell them to find a new home.

I guess that depends on what you think the value-add is of offices versus remote working. In our organization, the value-add is forcing everyone to be on the same work schedule, promulgating organizational culture, giving managers an idea of peoples' workload so they can load-balance, and meeting the need of people to socialize. We cross-staff on a per-matter basis, and we'll generally conduct inter-team communicatio…

There's a definite benefit to colocation for software teams. When someone is poring over gigabytes of logs and stack traces there's no substitute for someone more experienced looking over their shoulder, maybe grabbing their keyboard and typing in a few commands of their own then handing the keyboard back and making a few suggestions.

There also is a definite benefit to letting less-skilled developers interrupt the more skilled. Skilled developers without interruption kind of become data silos. They're extremely productive, but they could have a multiplicative effect on others' productivity that is wasted.

Even if most interruptions are useless, it's still worth it for the times when a senior dev stops a junior dev from wasting a week puzzling over a stack trace or implementing something useless.

Re: Commuting Kills

#52

Post by mmaunder »

DannyBee wrote: post #35

" Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost." Except, it doesn't, because achieving productivity usually requires remote workers to be able to collaborate effectively, and whether they can or not varies wildly. The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. Companies do no…

You're looking at this from a founder/company perspective. When I wrote that, and most of this post I was thinking of three things: The employee, the greater good (all of us, environment, etc - 'community' for lack of a better word) and the company.

So you could change that first sentence to read:

"Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost [to the employee]"

Employee, company and community aren't mutually exclusive. Reducing commuting cost for employee makes for someone who's happier, healthier and has more time available which benefits company and community.

I'd say only considering cost-to-company is less effective and a narrow way to measure how well your work environment and policies are doing.

"if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more..."

An argument that can be used against any innovation with a legacy alternative.

Re: Commuting Kills

#53

Post by [deleted] »

lukeschlather wrote: post #51
rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that depends on what you think the value-add is of offices versus remote working. In our organization, the value-add is forcing everyone to be on the same work schedule, promulgating organizational culture, giving managers an idea of peoples' workload so they can load-balance, and meeting the need of people to socialize. We cross-staff on a per-matter basis, and we'll generally conduct inter-team communicatio…

There's a definite benefit to colocation for software teams. When someone is poring over gigabytes of logs and stack traces there's no substitute for someone more experienced looking over their shoulder, maybe grabbing their keyboard and typing in a few commands of their own then handing the keyboard back and making a few suggestions. There also is a definite benefit to letting less-skilled developers interrupt the m…

[deleted]

Re: Commuting Kills

#54

Post by gcb0 »

i love how i moved to be closer to my office, then the office moved some 10miles away to be in a hype place that doesn't even have chairs. only standing desks. and the CEO boasted that sitting kill BS. and here i am, having to drive 20min instead of walking 30min. with an expensive rent next to the old place...

Re: Commuting Kills

#55

Post by mmaunder »

rayiner wrote: post #18

The article argues for telecommuting to reduce commutes. I think a far less radical approach would be to open multiple offices and put teams in more affordable secondary cities. Modern technology has made it pretty easy to spread your organization across multiple offices. I work at an organization of less than 35 people that has offices in three cities. Outsourcing IT/HR/building administration makes it pretty low-co…

This is a brilliant point. If you look at Amazon and their radical expansion in the South Lake Union district (down-town Seattle) and the commuting capacity problems that creates - One wonders why they don't base satellite offices on the east side of Seattle (Redmond, Bellevue where Microsoft is) and give employees that option.

I think for large companies this is an excellent alternative and solves the problem where employees can't telecommute because of sensitive IP or security clearance.

Re: Commuting Kills

#56

Post by munificent »

rayiner wrote: post #38
munificent wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works OK, but it increases the costs of reorganizing teams and projects. If your project structure changes frequently, it really helps if that just involves moving people from one room to another and not having to tell them to find a new home.

I guess that depends on what you think the value-add is of offices versus remote working. In our organization, the value-add is forcing everyone to be on the same work schedule, promulgating organizational culture, giving managers an idea of peoples' workload so they can load-balance, and meeting the need of people to socialize. We cross-staff on a per-matter basis, and we'll generally conduct inter-team communicatio…

> I guess that depends on what you think the value-add is of offices versus remote working.

Right, which I think is a calculation people need to take seriously. There are real benefits and trade-offs on either side and articles arguing that one is uniformly better than the other always come across as terribly misguided to me.

The physical and social environment that a social animal like a human spends the majority of their waking day in has a profound impact on almost every aspect of their lives. We should be thoughtful about how we arrange it.

Re: Commuting Kills

#57

Post by [deleted] »

DannyBee wrote: post #35

" Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost." Except, it doesn't, because achieving productivity usually requires remote workers to be able to collaborate effectively, and whether they can or not varies wildly. The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. Companies do no…

[deleted]

Re: Commuting Kills

#58

Post by [deleted] »

trjordan wrote: post #8

"...strong, rational and tangible reasons why an employee needs to be based on-site, rather than intangibles like culture, narrative or norms." What. This sentiment is exactly what's wrong with trying to push for more remote work. I don't think we have the tools, either technical or managerial, to build fully-remote companies that are as effective as in-person companies. There are niches where this is true, but they'…

[deleted]

Re: Commuting Kills

#59

Post by fuzzywalrus »

sandworm101 wrote: post #11
dupe576 wrote: post #4

That's why I think everyone should bike to work if possible. It has little to no environmental impact and a positive health impact. And because you are killing two birds with one stone by exercising during your commute, you really aren't wasting any time.

Biking is fine if you are a prof at a college campus, or the boss of some hip startup, but I cannot arrive at work sweating through a horribly wrinkled suit. We don't have showers. I have yet to meet anyone who has communized by bike in my city (Vancouver BC) for more than a few years without a major altercation with a motorvehicle. It might be healthy, but it is also physically dangerous.

There's a double standard for women in many jobs, even in the most bike friendly city in the US, as a biker I've observed most of my fellow commuters are men. Its easier for me as there's less expectations placed on my appearance. I put on a fresh set of clothes, a hat and I'm good to go. I'm lucky I live where biking is easy, working a non-client facing job, as male and a company with an indoor bike rack and shower.

Re: Commuting Kills

#60

Post by sheepmullet »

DannyBee wrote: post #35

" Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost." Except, it doesn't, because achieving productivity usually requires remote workers to be able to collaborate effectively, and whether they can or not varies wildly. The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. Companies do no…

"The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more."

A nice idea in theory but it doesn't hold up in practice. In fact the entire premise of startups is that large companies are run incredibly inefficiently and get stuck in local optima.

Managers typically stick to known practices and rarely experiment unless they are forced to or there are clear personal benefits. It is very difficult to move against entrenched corporate culture and pretty much nobody does it "for the company".

Post reply on HN