Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
111–120 of 462 posts
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand you're joking about Agile, but the previous holy path was waterfall, which was a hideously expensive way to get to failure.
Except that Waterfall was never really advocated: https://davesquared.net/2008/01/contentious-myth-of-waterfal... It was conceived as a straw man which was being dissed so vigorously that people started believing it was real.
And Agile has it's fault and it has become filled with consultants, buzzwords and all kinds of things but early days when I built an internal system used in factories for a large company. The old ways of building and documenting software there was pretty much waterfall and there was a lot of middle-management, reporting, architects, documenting etc.
I was a part of a pretty young team + one offshore team in India (that was not great but not bad either) and we had a great boss who fought for us when we wanted to develop using pretty standard Scrum instead and we had a great product owner who immediately got what we were after and had great domain knowledge.
That project went sooo much better than previous ones and even if there were a lot of fighting and escalations in the beginning the whole concept of "Just call into our demo's we have every three weeks and see what we are developing and then give feedback" was like a revelation for some would be users of the system or owners of processes we implemented.
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#113Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#114This article is from 2018 and gets posted pretty regularly. I happen to agree with its core thesis but I'm not sure we get anything out of having it on the front page again.
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#115There are definitely problems with the open office but one thing I can say is that there is truly a different energy to the office when it's open and people can chat spontaneously. Some of my best projects have started this way, as have all my office friendships. I'd definitely get more heads-down work done in a private office setting. However in that setting I'd mostly be annoyed I couldn't just work from my home of…
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#116So I worked in a legacy industry and they co-located a couple of teams near our biggest client. They decided to put in place an open office concept for the engineers and support staff, and gave the VPs and sales guys private offices. Especially when we first moved into the office the VPs loved to take the customers on a tour and stand at the top of the space and tell them how great this open office was. I was in a ba…
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#117Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#118> They start using email and messaging with much greater frequency than before. Couldn't the same focus that drove the open-office transition also be responsible for driving more effective communication tools? Or just more collaboration in general, which naturally results in an increased use in communications tools? Or maybe the tools have just been improving over time, which results in an entirely unrelated increase…
I work in an open-plan office in a place that makes heavy use of the latest collaboration software, and it works great. There is virtually no use of email or IM internally. Just persistent chat and collaboration with Teams.
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#119I am not sure why employees would message and email more if they can just turn their chair around to chat about something they are working on. Does anyone have experience of this? I have worked in open plan offices since 1999 and I've never experienced productivity problems. If anything I'd expect working in a cube would lead to more time wasted cruising websites since your screen is more obscured. I dunno, I've only…
I'm working in an open office now. With few exceptions, every single person wears headphones (presumably noise-canceling) most of the day. Some people (especially me) have video conferences from our desks. For a "hey there" conversation, most teammates have to get up and walk over to someone else... tap them to shake them out of their focus and get them to take their headphones off. Don't think any of us resort to em…
I think it's pretty tough to read if it's okay to interrupt when your teammate is wearing headphones (especially if, as you said, everyone wears them most of the day). Sometimes I'm just wearing headphones to listen to some music while doing something easy and tedious, which would be okay to interrupt. But if I'm diving deep into some system to find a mystery bug, then I'd be annoyed if interrupted.
I'm currently working on a project exploring physical interruptions and would appreciate hearing about your (and other HN users') experiences: https://forms.gle/syL1XrLAauxd57hr7
Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study
#120Perhaps if engineers had some type of labor union, professional association, or guild, then they can collectively stand up to management and get rid of annoyances like open offices. Why not? If it’s something universally unpopular with hackers, yet embraced by management, doesn’t that provide a valid use case for organizing? Or are we just going to forever grouse about it until management loses interest on their own and embraces an even worse floor plan fad?
And consider the other nearly-ubiquitous or common annoyances in tech- unpaid overtime, lack of support for remote work, whiteboard interviews. Why don’t the workers in the industry rally to solve them, if those in charge are unwilling to? If we care so much about “disruption”, why are we so content with the status quo of work?
Upton Sinclair said of The Jungle that he was aiming for the public’s heart and hit it in the stomach. Perhaps software engineers will not be appealed to by arguments or neither the heart, nor the stomach- but of the flow.