91–100 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of such implementations (virtual whiteboard and/or pen and paper). Search for: "collaborating writing tool", "virtual whiteboard" etc. The latter are usually part of teleconference tools. Here's from an open source one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNqiMEblgo
None of the ones I've ever seen or used comes close to even approximating the in-person whiteboard experience.
Things that happen when you're in the office: - spins around in chair, interrupts and asks coworker a question, workshops ideas for 15 minutes, comes up with solution, makes a meeting - boss comes over and tells workers there's some issue going on he's going to go deal with and he'll be available via cell only - when SCRUM ends, conversation continues in person, things get decided - walk into boss's office and make t…
Sounds to me like you're a detriment to your entire office, callously leeching people's time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your boss. I had plenty water cooler conversations with mine.
I would say that is not professional. If there is anything work related, you book a meeting and then discuss. For this reason I know few people are on the look out when to go get the water without stumbling upon a boss or a manager, because they take it as a harassment. This adds huge amount of stress and knocks the productivity. Workplaces with "we are big family" approach are the worse. This should be illegal.
I suspect that a workplace where work discussions happen only in form of formal meetings would be rather unproductive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unfortunately there are many more examples where it is proven that collocated teams work far better
and then you forget to list them.
But seriously... I would expect there to be examples of both - Good remote teams. Good office teams. Bad remote teams. Bad office teams.
And every shade in between.
I'd, personally, prefer a mix? Couple days in the office... couple days remote. Time to "schmooze" with the team. Time to be in a quiet place to concentrate.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Anyone that claims one extreme is better or worse generally misses the truth: The best option is generally somewhere in the middle of the extremes.
I think that the 'importance of face-to-face interaction' argument is a helplessly contrived one, an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room. There are plenty of examples that show that working remotely without daily face-to-face interaction can work very well. What's markedly different about environments that successfully adopted remote work are aspects like: - a lack of cargo cult work organisation and office pol…
"Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. " Yes. Having managed remote teams and being a remote dev, it's all about response time . If someone slacks you, the response should be as quick as if it were verbal in the office. If it takes 2 hours to get a respo…
Two-minute responses on Slack absolutely is a model that can work, and perhaps it's the easiest transition for people who've been working in a "teamy"/open-plan on-site setup. But I'm also convinced that it's not the only viable setup.
Conversations around whiteboards between stakeholders creates value. Pair programming makes for lower defects and more reliable scheduling. Software is a design delivery operation. There was recent article on MS office space redesign to create more value. We are never typing approximations to futures like the proverbial monkeys. Productivity is not per-keystroke. I have been paid extra to kill projects that never sho…
>Conversations around whiteboards between stakeholders creates value.
Why ? Are whiteboards magic ?
>Pair programming makes for lower defects and more reliable scheduling
Putting aside the fact that the benefits of pair programming as less consensual than what you seem to suggest, it can be done much more conveniently in a remote setup with a screenshare and a headset than by sharing a desk.
>Software is a design delivery operation.
So ?
>There was recent article on MS office space redesign to create more value.
Here we have the business case reference, always good to include one. The substantial remark is that once again this doesn't prove anything, the first reason being that "value" is extremely vague.
>Productivity is not per-keystroke
The art of looking like you are siding with the people you want to control while it is actually the opposite. If we go the bottom of the reasoning : value is not per keystroke, we therefore need to put employees in a room because their true value must be monitored to be appreciated. "Please understand, I really want to be able to appreciate your true value". Sounds a bit hypocrite to me.
>Personal productivity is almost a misnomer
One more slogan.
>I have been paid extra to kill projects that never should have started.
While I am the first to advocate careful planning and writing code last, as an entrepreneur, I consider it a crime to sabotage projects, because anyone who has ever created something, or started a project or a venture understands that creativity is almost Holy. Beyond the technical deliverables, projects trigger group (and market) dynamics and institutional learning that may be hard to reproduce later in time. For this reason, doers do not sabotage or kill projects, they rectify them. Sure there can be pure follies that need to be stopped ASAP to stop diverting valuable resources of the company, but my overall impression is that you have a more liberal approach to assessing what must be killed.
I respect arguments from both sides, but this comment is really representative of the crap filling most companies.
I think it's connected with the rise of bullshit jobs. If your job is well defined, e.g. make an app or a website design, you can do it anywhere in the world. The app/design is your deliverable that anyone can see and judge. If your job is a poorly defined "management" or "product ownership", with no real deliverable, how can your work be judged? Your job turns into convincing other people that your job is useful. Wo…
I think it's kind of a leap to assume the value is low just because it's hard to measure. This is in general a common, elusive mistake: "We can't measure it, so it must be zero." Better to be ridiculous and say it's worth between $100 and $10,000.
While it's debatable whether remote works for businesses that can work remotely, it imposes costs on the rest of us, especially those who can't do their jobs over an Internet connection, and those costs should be paid by those who willingly incur them, not whoever they can push them off to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of such implementations (virtual whiteboard and/or pen and paper). Search for: "collaborating writing tool", "virtual whiteboard" etc. The latter are usually part of teleconference tools. Here's from an open source one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNqiMEblgo
None of the ones I've ever seen or used comes close to even approximating the in-person whiteboard experience.
They let you write stuff (even with a pen, on a touch capable display) and have others see what you write (and even write/erase themselves).
What else is missing?
Standing in person before an actual whiteboard? Smelling the marker's ink? Maybe with the advent of cheap VR and smell-o-vision we'll get that too.
I work remote almost 100% and it'a pretty awesome. A Dev I work with has to commute through 50% of Germany every week. He only sees his kids on the weekend.
You make it sound like he doesn't have a choice in the matter, which is extremely unlikely and also very sad.