7 ms·

> ...the best way to encourage creativity is to knock down office walls and to hold incessant meetings. Being part of office layout team in a Fortune 10 compan

by achow 10y ago

> ...the best way to encourage creativity is to knock down office walls and to hold incessant meetings. Being part of office layout team in a Fortune 10 company I'm now aware that most of the time the motivation is cost. It is way cheaper by many order of magnitude to have an open plan office. Other cost related reasons are easy to manage space -can be expanded and scaled down in jiffy- cheaper HVAC installation and maintenance etc.

Veen 10y ago
> It is way cheaper by many order of magnitude to have an open plan office. It's even cheaper to let people work remotely from home, which is also perfect for introverts. I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential.
- collyw 10y ago
  I imagine a lot of people would be more efficient working away from office distractions as well.
- dqv 10y ago
  >I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential. Because it's only cheaper on paper. The risk is way too high for me to abuse the fact that there is no IT staff, there is no redundancy, and there is no one to make sure I'm on task. I can stay home from work because I don't have to go anywhere to work in the first place. I'm working in my fun place... which has the negative effect of making my fun place less fun and possibly making my work place less work. You can of course argue that someone should know they are going to be less productive as a remote worker, but most people _are_ going to accept the offer even if it is detrimental.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > there is no one to make sure I'm on task In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then it's straightforward how to quantify output in terms of quantity, difficulty, timeliness, etc. Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself (code, docs, etc.).
    - dasmoth 10y ago
      Looking just at commits means ignoring time spent thinking about problems, planning ahead, etc. That ought to translate into commits in the end, but assuming a steady rate of progess means you're probably not measuring the right thing. >>> Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself Agree, but would specify "over a relatively long period of time."
    - RandomOpinion 10y ago
      >In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. That only applies to junior developers whose measure is the amount of code they complete and even that is potentially gameable with fluff check-ins. High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time.
      - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
        Stats are fluffable, but is a fluff check-in really a fluff check-in if nobody actually looking at it can tell it's fluff? > High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time. They still have measurable, logged and recorded output. Specs get checked in. Bugs get filed and updated. Sample some of it. This will better help you identify who's struggling or slacking off in the office too.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - rebeccaskinner 10y ago
    I guess it just depends a lot on the individual. I left my last job in large part because they were adamantly against remote work. My current job is much more flexible with Monday/Friday being in-office days (and even that is fairly flexible) and the middle of the week really being just a matter of preference. I usually work from home 1-2 days per week and I don't feel like it's a negative impact on my productivity at all- if anything I think I get a lot more done at home on the right days (decision making and mentoring seem to work better in a shared physical space with a whiteboard, but when I'm just trying to get in a feature or go through a backlog of code review requests I can get a lot more done at home). All of that aside though, the main argument I've made in favor of remote work in the past has been that for many people and teams (in software development, I can't speak outside of my field) even if remote work does cost some productivity it's worthwhile because it vastly increases quality of life.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Here's my argument for remote work. If working in an office is vastly more productive than working from home, as soon as remote work is relatively commonplace in our industry we should see jobs where you have to come into the office paying a premium of at least 25%. The time wasted in traffic in the morning, plus owning a car and maintenance of said car are not free and if a company wishes for that they shall pay for it.
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        Here's my argument against: If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India or the Philippines. Be careful what you wish for.
        huehehue 10y ago
        Sure, if you ignore quality of work, timezone differences, language barriers, and any hiring regulations that might exist.
        10y ago
lostboys67 10y ago
Many orders of magnitude I very much doubt that
- pliny 10y ago
  Many orders of magnitude in Base 1.01
Cthulhu_ 10y ago
That's what I've been saying too (open offices are cheaper), but on the other hand, software developers aren't cheap, are in high demand, etc. Which makes me wonder: How come developers don't stand on their stripes more? Vote with their feet? And why aren't companies doing more like offering perks like private offices to top talents? I'd argue that giving a developer a few m2 more space is a lot cheaper than the developer's wage
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  I did. Until every single possible job opportunity was in an open office floor plan. If it hasn't become 100% like that where you are now it will be soon.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Small companies don't have this kind of problem. Even if they place everybody on the same room, it's still a team's room, not an open floor. Big companies do not care about productivity. They care about maximizing the bonus and curriculum of their executives. There is some middle way of companies small enough to care about productivity, but big enough to have problems with an open floor. That middle is a bit hard to find, because often the preferences change the other way around, and they stop caring about productivity before they get that big. But it exists, and you may be able to convince somebody in there.

by achow 10y ago

Veen 10y ago

> It is way cheaper by many order of magnitude to have an open plan office. It's even cheaper to let people work remotely from home, which is also perfect for introverts. I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential.

collyw 10y ago
I imagine a lot of people would be more efficient working away from office distractions as well.
dqv 10y ago
>I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential. Because it's only cheaper on paper. The risk is way too high for me to abuse the fact that there is no IT staff, there is no redundancy, and there is no one to make sure I'm on task. I can stay home from work because I don't have to go anywhere to work in the first place. I'm working in my fun place... which has the negative effect of making my fun place less fun and possibly making my work place less work. You can of course argue that someone should know they are going to be less productive as a remote worker, but most people _are_ going to accept the offer even if it is detrimental.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > there is no one to make sure I'm on task In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then it's straightforward how to quantify output in terms of quantity, difficulty, timeliness, etc. Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself (code, docs, etc.).
  - dasmoth 10y ago
    Looking just at commits means ignoring time spent thinking about problems, planning ahead, etc. That ought to translate into commits in the end, but assuming a steady rate of progess means you're probably not measuring the right thing. >>> Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself Agree, but would specify "over a relatively long period of time."
  - RandomOpinion 10y ago
    >In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. That only applies to junior developers whose measure is the amount of code they complete and even that is potentially gameable with fluff check-ins. High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time.
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      Stats are fluffable, but is a fluff check-in really a fluff check-in if nobody actually looking at it can tell it's fluff? > High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time. They still have measurable, logged and recorded output. Specs get checked in. Bugs get filed and updated. Sample some of it. This will better help you identify who's struggling or slacking off in the office too.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- rebeccaskinner 10y ago
  I guess it just depends a lot on the individual. I left my last job in large part because they were adamantly against remote work. My current job is much more flexible with Monday/Friday being in-office days (and even that is fairly flexible) and the middle of the week really being just a matter of preference. I usually work from home 1-2 days per week and I don't feel like it's a negative impact on my productivity at all- if anything I think I get a lot more done at home on the right days (decision making and mentoring seem to work better in a shared physical space with a whiteboard, but when I'm just trying to get in a feature or go through a backlog of code review requests I can get a lot more done at home). All of that aside though, the main argument I've made in favor of remote work in the past has been that for many people and teams (in software development, I can't speak outside of my field) even if remote work does cost some productivity it's worthwhile because it vastly increases quality of life.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Here's my argument for remote work. If working in an office is vastly more productive than working from home, as soon as remote work is relatively commonplace in our industry we should see jobs where you have to come into the office paying a premium of at least 25%. The time wasted in traffic in the morning, plus owning a car and maintenance of said car are not free and if a company wishes for that they shall pay for it.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Here's my argument against: If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India or the Philippines. Be careful what you wish for.
      - huehehue 10y ago
        Sure, if you ignore quality of work, timezone differences, language barriers, and any hiring regulations that might exist.
        10y ago

lostboys67 10y ago

Many orders of magnitude I very much doubt that

pliny 10y ago
Many orders of magnitude in Base 1.01

Cthulhu_ 10y ago

That's what I've been saying too (open offices are cheaper), but on the other hand, software developers aren't cheap, are in high demand, etc. Which makes me wonder: How come developers don't stand on their stripes more? Vote with their feet? And why aren't companies doing more like offering perks like private offices to top talents? I'd argue that giving a developer a few m2 more space is a lot cheaper than the developer's wage

1_2__3 10y ago
I did. Until every single possible job opportunity was in an open office floor plan. If it hasn't become 100% like that where you are now it will be soon.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 10y ago
Small companies don't have this kind of problem. Even if they place everybody on the same room, it's still a team's room, not an open floor. Big companies do not care about productivity. They care about maximizing the bonus and curriculum of their executives. There is some middle way of companies small enough to care about productivity, but big enough to have problems with an open floor. That middle is a bit hard to find, because often the preferences change the other way around, and they stop caring about productivity before they get that big. But it exists, and you may be able to convince somebody in there.