The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies • Hacker News Board

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#141

Post by RyJones » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:44 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #54

abalone wrote: post #10

Suffers from the same flaw as most critiques of open plan: it focuses on individual productivity while failing to understand how it contributes to team productivity. Cornell did a study of open plan awhile back that you should all read. I posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507404 The misunderstanding here is that it's just about serendipitously "overhearing" other conversations. 1. Open plan makes…

This is pure hell for people who actually do work, and often repeated by managers who don't "get it." Silly questions are not the genesis of good ideas, they're a denial of service attack on good work. Read Peopleware.

It's amazing all the managers get offices but the ICs get productivity-enhancing cubes.

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#142

Post by balls187 » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:46 PM UTC

Reading the arguments made in comments against open floor plans aren't inherently problems specific to open spaces, but rather, problems with ineffective management/leadership.

Writing software is a very mental intensive task, and interruptions and distractions cause major fracks in productivity. I take this is FACT.

Offices allow you to deal with some of these issues by closing the door. That isn't a guarantee that you won't be interrupted, but generally speaking a closed door is a universal sign to say "not right now, I'm busy."

Also office walls tend to be sound proof, so they can be much quieter, unless you share a wall with a team of sales staff :(

Offices solve two problems: a way to universally say "I'm busy" and keep things quiet.

I believe you can replicate those things in an open floor plan, but it's much harder to do without buyin from the team and good leadership/management to ensure that people are allowed to work without distractions and interruptions.

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#143

Post by npsimons » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #10

Suffers from the same flaw as most critiques of open plan: it focuses on individual productivity while failing to understand how it contributes to team productivity. Cornell did a study of open plan awhile back that you should all read. I posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507404 The misunderstanding here is that it's just about serendipitously "overhearing" other conversations. 1. Open plan makes…

If this were true, then why don't managers and Chief Officer types have their workspaces in open plans? Just think of the productivity increases that could be gained!

No, open plans are almost always for two reasons, ignoring any harm or benefit:

1) To reduce costs.

2) Politics/motivation - you have to work hard or be important to get an office.

And I'll see your one study and raise you a "Peopleware" by DeMarco and Lister; IMHO it should be required reading for everyone (especially those who decide on space layouts for knowledge workers).

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#144

Post by fudisgud » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

>The primary task of a programmer is writing code, which involves sitting at a desk and thinking and typing

This is most definitely is not the case for most development positions.

Oh yes, there's plenty of code to write if your a developer. But there's communicating with management/qa/business dev/other developers/support as to what to work on, progress on tasks, clarification of requirements, bugs discovered, issues raised, tests to run, ways to program, etc. Open spaces will encourage these conversations to happen more organically instead of scheduled strictly around meetings.

At the end of the day, companies wants developers to crank out code as much as possible, but what they need is development to communicate effectively - among themselves and across teams. Hence, open floor plans, even if it reduces the quality of code.

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#145

Post by jami » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:49 PM UTC

thejosh wrote: post #65

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pure hell for people who actually do work, and often repeated by managers who don't "get it." Silly questions are not the genesis of good ideas, they're a denial of service attack on good work. Read Peopleware.

Great term, does that make when multiple people ask you questions a distributed denial of service?

Meetings.

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#146

Post by sutterbomb » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:51 PM UTC

empthought wrote: post #38

abalone wrote: post #10

Suffers from the same flaw as most critiques of open plan: it focuses on individual productivity while failing to understand how it contributes to team productivity. Cornell did a study of open plan awhile back that you should all read. I posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507404 The misunderstanding here is that it's just about serendipitously "overhearing" other conversations. 1. Open plan makes…

That link about the Cornell study is comically bad. Where are the raw data tables? Doing a little background research it seems they were comparing open floor plans to cubicles. They didn't even consider the obvious alternatives to the panopticon, such as remote work or the tried-and-true office with a door.

I don't think "office with a door" is an obvious alternative, because it's prohibitively expensive to build out a space with individual offices for every single employee.

It's like saying a study that compared air travel to high speed rail is comically bad because it didn't even consider teleportation. (Extreme hyperbole, but I think it conveys my point.)

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#147

Post by jmzbond » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

_kfb wrote: post #71

ryanbrunner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really the best answer. Our office is open-plan as a rule, but there's plenty of "individually-sized" meeting rooms where you can work privately if you need to focus on something. It also serves as a good signal that you shouldn't be interrupted if you've taken one of those spots. Obviously you need to have enough of these that there isn't competition for those rooms, but it can definitely work well.

However, there are environments in which there is a social pressure to not take those spots and in fact be present at your desk regardless. Am I more productive in an isolated room? Absolutely. Do I feel comfortable doing it? No, not necessarily.

Interesting, but I think that comfort speaks to a different issue. The office culture then is indirectly creating an environment that pressures you to act in a certain way and not acknowledging individual preference.

I agree that both is the way to go. You can find a study backing up either approach because they are important in different ways for different people.

I'm surprised no one has really brought up the introversion vs. extroversion angle. I just read Susan Cain's Quiet, and feel a wealth of clarity re: our general cultural stereotype that extroversion is better and therefore, so must be environments that are conducive to it (e.g., open floor plan. I don't have any illusions that corporations do that to save money, $ has never been a concern).

I work at a huge startup (300 people) that still has a very open floor plan and I basically work outside when it's not raining so that I can concentrate better. But the woman sitting next to me thrives in the activity and she can't work anywhere else.

I'm glad that the culture allows us to take freedom and ownership in how we channel our own productivity.

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#148

Post by furyg3 » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

We thought about this, and while we acknowledge the company's interest in shaping culture, we felt that the company doesn't have a right to dictate one mode of working when dealing with experienced professionals. When renovating our office, we came up with the following modes and solutions to give people choices:

1. Working efficiently in a library mode: A silent room, for people who want to work in quiet with no distractions. No talking, no phones, if you need to talk to someone in the library you need to IM or email them. Good monitors and mice / keyboards.

2. Working in a ‘normal’ mode: Standard open floor plan, good monitors/mice/keyboards, you can take a call if you want to or talk to someone next to you.

3. Teamwork mode: Tables in the open space with nothing on them, for teams working together or semi-independently. Usually a whiteboard nearby.

4. Small and/or impromptu meetings not requiring privacy: We have quite some semi-closed booths which are un-reservable. Very nice if you want to work on something intensely with 1-4 people.

5. Private phone calls or small meetings requiring privacy: fully closed booths which can seat 1-4 people.

6. Presentations, large meetings, meetings with externals, or meetings requiring a formal setting, or lockdown mode: bookable conference rooms.

7. Total autonomy: Work from home or somewhere else.

The results is that (surprise!) most people choose to work in the open-plan mode, not the silent mode. If a particular employee is not working most efficiently in the mode he chooses or not, I can't really tell you...

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#149

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #143

abalone wrote: post #10

Suffers from the same flaw as most critiques of open plan: it focuses on individual productivity while failing to understand how it contributes to team productivity. Cornell did a study of open plan awhile back that you should all read. I posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507404 The misunderstanding here is that it's just about serendipitously "overhearing" other conversations. 1. Open plan makes…

If this were true, then why don't managers and Chief Officer types have their workspaces in open plans? Just think of the productivity increases that could be gained! No, open plans are almost always for two reasons, ignoring any harm or benefit: 1) To reduce costs. 2) Politics/motivation - you have to work hard or be important to get an office. And I'll see your one study and raise you a "Peopleware" by DeMarco and…

[deleted]

Re: The inexplicable rise of open floor plans in tech companies

#150

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:53 PM UTC

sutterbomb wrote: post #146

empthought wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link about the Cornell study is comically bad. Where are the raw data tables? Doing a little background research it seems they were comparing open floor plans to cubicles. They didn't even consider the obvious alternatives to the panopticon, such as remote work or the tried-and-true office with a door.

I don't think "office with a door" is an obvious alternative, because it's prohibitively expensive to build out a space with individual offices for every single employee. It's like saying a study that compared air travel to high speed rail is comically bad because it didn't even consider teleportation. (Extreme hyperbole, but I think it conveys my point.)

Not that more expensive. Those cubicles cost nearly as much. I've built out spaces before, and offices are absolutely worth the expense, especially if you consider the improved work performance.

Its like saying light bulbs are comically bad because the sun is there for free. :)