Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#311

Post by cmroanirgo » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #276

bjornjajajaja wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup it’s been proven that libraries are good places to get work done not cafeterias. They really should have collaborative AND personal spaces. Not a forced airport-like office setup. What were they smoking when they designed those?

For me, a little noise is the worst. A busy cafe with a constant level of noise is easy for me to tune out. If everyone is silent but like every 30s something happens: Someone coughs, a bag of snacks is rustled, a cardboard strap is opened. That's the worst.

Agreed.

I'm fine when the general level of noise is way up, because there's less for the brain to latch onto and get distracted by. I've churned out serious lines of code in a noisy cafe, but always churn out more when I'm at home: my noises, no distractions.

It's the human interaction though that drags me away from the work-from-home/work-in-a-cubicle lifestyle.

I find even quiet conversations in an open environment to be the worst of all distractions. The clacking of pens and the slurping of drinks in a library set my teeth on edge, forcing me to wear headphones, which means I may as well be outside with the rabble.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#312

Post by jariel » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

It's not a management fad, it's a financial fad. It's mostly about the money, nothing else. Short term gain (saving money) is much easier to calculate than anything else.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#313

Post by goto11 » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

praptak wrote: post #69

LanceH wrote: post #44

Earlier 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.

Oh yes it was advocated. Maybe the actual term "waterfall" was invented in order to criticize the methodology, but it was describing and criticizing a real, commonly used methodology.

Waterfall is really how you manage other large construction projects like building a house or a bridge. So it is not completely crazy to think you can also develop software that way. It took many failures to realize software demanded a different approach.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#314

Post by artsyca » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

Look the open plan works amazingly at libraries but there's one rule: no talking

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#315

Post by phonon » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

mprovost wrote: post #194

phonon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way...a nice sized cubicle is 100 sqft, and Class A rents in Manhattan are under $100/sqft/y. So the actual office space is something like $10,000 or less per year. Of course there is other overhead, but space itself is in that range. So the max savings, in the most expensive market in the US, is under $10k per year.

That size seems high. 100 sqft would be a nice sized office. Cubicles are more like 30 square feet. Douglas Coupland gave cubicles the name "veal fattening pens" in Generation X but they're actually smaller now - calf enclosures are 30-35 sqft. The latest fad with standing desks is even smaller. https://www.wired.com/2000/05/is-your-cubicle-shrinking-too/

Yes, that's my point--the cost of raw office space for a single large cubicle/small office in Manhattan is under $10k/year. Other overhead is basically the same for a shared bench vs. large cubicle.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#316

Post by phonon » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

slumdev wrote: post #76

brianpayne2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking with a friend who works at a company HQ'd in NYC and he said that the average cost per person/desk was over 60k/yr. It was a lot higher than I was expecting.

I'd be surprised if this is just real estate. HR and other things get rolled into overhead cost numbers.

But the portion that is ascribed to the raw footage would be under $10k/y...the other costs are not really correlated with shared bench vs cubicle vs private office.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#317

Post by sharadov » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

dualboot wrote: post #137

The other side of this is that a very large percentage of folks in our industry seem to have social anxiety-spectrum issues. Folks without those don't seem to understand how much energy is being burned through just being out in the open and on display for all of your coworkers. It's not something I, personally, have control over. The time I've spent in "open concept" work places, I finish every day frustrated with my…

It absolutely sucked for me whenever I used to try and code, if I was deep in thought and looking away and someone passed by, they would nod in my direction or get my attention some other way ( sorry am thinking, not in a mood to socialize)! Thankfully when I needed to get work done, the company allowed remote work. Working remote for the last 2.5 years, it's going to be hard when I have to go back to a real office.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#318

Post by dkersten » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

floren wrote: post #221

dkersten wrote: post #156

The best office I've experienced (but sadly only visited for two week, the branch I worked at had typical open plan garbage) had the building split into sections where along both sides were small single-person offices (large enough that two people could sit at a desk and work, or 3 to 4 people could sit for a meeting) with closing sliding doors. In the space between the two rows of offices was a small amount of hot-d…

This is my favorite kind of setup. I call it the "Unix Room" model, because it's sort of like what I saw at Bell Labs: Private offices for staff, but people would also work in an open area often (it helped that they just had terminals scattered around and you could sit at any one of them). I've worked in such an environment and loved it, but of course it costs more space than any of the other alternatives.

Yeah, it really was the best of both worlds. People tended to keep their doors open to signal it was ok to interrupt them, but if they needed to get work done, they just close the doors. People also spent a lot of time in the center areas, when it made sense to do so, eg when they were doing something that could be done in a more relaxed environment, or to brainstorm or chat with others.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#319

Post by _y5hn » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

dualboot wrote: post #309

_y5hn wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for thinking and sharing my experience. Just go back to being socially anxious then! Nevermind other explanation models or opportunities. I've updated my comment to attempt to clarify the meaning better, in case that was miscommunicated.

The older I get, the more I realize that we really haven't figured out anything at all. We just make up or prescribe to a set of rules that help us cope with that as best as possible.

That's intentionally or unintentionally very insightful. We are the product of our environment, which is infinitely more powerful than us, so we have to adapt it wisely or perish.

Re: Open-plan offices decrease face-to-face collaboration: study

#320

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

lxcfan wrote: post #41

t-writescode wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These issues sound a lot like managers not trusting employees to get work done, which sounds like a bigger issue.

This, but, for both sides. Managers should trust their employees to get stuff done, and not micromanage their time. Employees should get stuff done whether their managers are watching their every move or not, and, trust their managers to not be micromanaging their time. We both need to create a trustworthy relationship. I have no sympathy for employees who do not do work without being forced to any more than I do for…

Like all relationships it is reciprocal notably. Demotivated or stressed employees are more likely to "full slack" (not doing any work as opposed to say switching to a lower intensity duty). Bosses who distrust their employees are more likely to micromanage and stress and demotivate.

Proper results oriented approaches can help for both parties. At the end of the day throughput is what matters for productivity not how hard they work. But that is logistically nontrivial to set up and calibrate properly, let alone other temptations and pressure to try to "optimize" beyond the ability to be sustained. Knowledge work in even the lowliest sense isn't optimal like an assembly line.

Making matters worse as usual for any would be reformers are inertia and politics of course. It is the ultimate "dancing monkey" but instead of being between security and the monkey choosing the latter, the choice is practical and wise decisions or politically pleasing ones.