>yet there is scant direct empirical research on how human interaction patterns change as a result of these architectural changes wat. There are literally mor

>yet there is scant direct empirical research on how human interaction patterns change as a result of these architectural changes wat. There are literally more than 1,000 studies that have been done on the impact of open floor plan offices to productivity (almost universally finding very significant negative effects). My mind boggles at how anyone interested in the topic could possibly conclude that there is scant evidence on the subject. It's extremely well-trod terrain. Office spaces were designed for repetitive office tasks which assisted repetitive manufacturing operations. Mental work is profoundly and fundamentally different in character, and offices have never been designed with the goal of enhancing it. The place of work in society, the idea of the 40 hour work week, and all such things are still following practices optimized for manufacturing. That human beings have different capacities for mental exertion compared to physical exertion, that the benefits of uninterrupted concentration are super-linear in terms of time spent in that state, and that mental work of poor quality can have very negative value, causing the expenditure of far more effort overall than necessary, these sorts of things get ignored. Doing anything in a business which appears to make things 'easier' on workers is reflexively viewed at least with suspicion, if not outright derision. That's a social problem, mostly, and not one that is likely to change over short time spans or without great effort and risks being taken. It's understandable that most companies are risk-averse, so change happens slowly.