I'd be careful about trying to extrapolate this to everyday work situations. They were performing a very specific task (solving a traveling salesman problem) t

I'd be careful about trying to extrapolate this to everyday work situations. They were performing a very specific task (solving a traveling salesman problem) that had a clearly-defined optimum solution and little room for a lot of the kinds of thinking that are needed in business scenarios, such as challenging the business case and lateral thinking. I didn't notice them stating a overall duration for the experiment (admittedly I did skim), but it sounds like it took place over the course of, at most, hours - not the weeks, months or years that would be relevant to someone trying to optimize a product development process. That means that their "intermittent communication" case probably still involved communication at a frequency that would be downright unsustainable in a business setting, and would certainly be something most of us would think of as "constant". For example, assuming the experiment took place over 2 hours, then the intermittent communication group would be taking a look at each other's work about every 20 minutes. (edit: I checked again, and caught it - looks like I was being generous in my time assumptions. An entire trial lasted no longer than 14 minutes. The "constant" group was checking in with each other at least every 50 seconds, and the "intermittent" group at least every 2.5 minutes.) It's still an interesting result, mind. But it's not going to support anyone's position on the value of daily stand-up meetings.