4 ms·

Because it's cheap. Less walls to build, more employees packed on to a floor. Do you lose more money than you're saving due to decreased productivity? Maybe. B

Because it's cheap. Less walls to build, more employees packed on to a floor. Do you lose more money than you're saving due to decreased productivity? Maybe. But that's hard to prove, and "This office proposal is $X million cheaper because we can lease three fewer floors" is very straightforward.

paulddraper 8y ago
I'd wager open office is 2/3 the cost of small cubicles, 1/2 the cost of large cubicles and 1/3 the cost of cubicles plus offices.
jesuslop 8y ago
absolutely, because it's dirtly comparatively cheaper. Period.
village-idiot 8y ago
That which can be measured gets managed. It’s very easy to measure the cost per employee, productivity is very hard to measure.
drofmij 8y ago
This. It's cheap and upper management doesn't care because they still get an office. Has there been any proper research on productivity loss / gains beyond the anecdotal? I have no idea and management doesn't read books anyway so we are stuck with open plans.
- sulam 8y ago
  FWIW most of the large companies I've worked at in tech don't give offices to anyone. I realize it's not universal, and some companies have execs in dedicated conference rooms that might as well be an office, but that mostly seems like an efficiency win from the perspective of someone who's in back to back 30 minute meetings all day long. Still, a lot of places at least are consistent about it all the way up to the CEO.
Reedx 8y ago
Exactly. The impact on productivity also depends on the type of work. I suspect it's a net loss in the long run for things that require or benefit from deep work.
- colordrops 8y ago
  SpaceX uses tightly packed open plan.
  - izzydata 8y ago
    Unfortunate. We'd already be living on Mars if they got their own cubes / offices.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Even the people who do the hard engineering? In most companies the number of people who do that work is pretty small.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      Yes, specifically engineering.
- barrkel 8y ago
  The transition from more waterfall-like projects to more agile-like, with feature-factory bitesize nibbles of work, seems to me to be predicated on less deep work. The unit of delivery is smaller, so it cannot be meaningfully transformative. Personally I think it's a model that scales better (ie supports more developers being applied to a problem) but requires more brute force modularity to contain the lack of system design that comes from lack of deep thinking (and thus we get microservices).
jessemillar 8y ago
My illogical hope is that one day we'll have the ability to run "simulations" in parallel universes so we actually can prove that option X was better in the long term than option Y.
- sucrose 8y ago
  Either way, there's still too many variables. If a company's ROI drops after changing to an open work-space... some variables off the top: decreased product quality/quantity, both/none, competition, consumer needs/wants, all of the above, etc.
- joshuagvk 8y ago
  Who's to say that this isn't already that simulation? It would certainly explain the preponderance of open offices...
andrewla 8y ago
I think there's also a cargo cult mentality that is really hard to deal with. Many successful companies today started on a shoestring, where the money saved by cramming everyone into the same space allowed the company to grow headcount quickly, and it is really hard to separate the things that contributed to the company's success from the incidentals that arose from its founding.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Do the 400k+ engineers at Google still work in open office elbow to elbow?
  - Latteland 8y ago
    They work in open offices but ideally grouped together say 10-15 people grouped in an office with an open door.
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    Yes. Even directors don't really have offices. I know at least one VP who doesn't have an office.
    - souprock 8y ago
      Woah. More and more, I'm glad I never took Google up on their interest in me. They absolutely have the money for real private offices, even in their expensive location.
xiphias2 8y ago
Wall prices don't matter at all, it's all about real estate space. Actually at a big Co I was working at they took out the walls to fit more people.
falcolas 8y ago
The cost is lower, since you're looking at around 60-100 square ft per employee as opposed to 100-150 sq ft for an office. That said, even in New York or SF (say, ~$80 per sq ft per year), that's still well under $8,000 per year per employee. That is, less than 4% of the average software developer salary cost in those same locations. Of course, the follow-on argument is typically "but we can't find enough sq ft of office space in one location!" to which I say: hundreds of businesses do this every day, what makes you special? Stop making excuses and invest in your assets.
coldcode 8y ago
Two jobs ago we were crammed into open office like sardines. The city even complained that they gave the company permission to build the buildings based on X occupants, but we had 2X. Some people had to park a mile away from the offices on a street. Yet the city wanted the tax revenue and looked the other way.

paulddraper 8y ago

I'd wager open office is 2/3 the cost of small cubicles, 1/2 the cost of large cubicles and 1/3 the cost of cubicles plus offices.

jesuslop 8y ago

absolutely, because it's dirtly comparatively cheaper. Period.

village-idiot 8y ago

That which can be measured gets managed. It’s very easy to measure the cost per employee, productivity is very hard to measure.

drofmij 8y ago

This. It's cheap and upper management doesn't care because they still get an office. Has there been any proper research on productivity loss / gains beyond the anecdotal? I have no idea and management doesn't read books anyway so we are stuck with open plans.

sulam 8y ago
FWIW most of the large companies I've worked at in tech don't give offices to anyone. I realize it's not universal, and some companies have execs in dedicated conference rooms that might as well be an office, but that mostly seems like an efficiency win from the perspective of someone who's in back to back 30 minute meetings all day long. Still, a lot of places at least are consistent about it all the way up to the CEO.

Reedx 8y ago

Exactly. The impact on productivity also depends on the type of work. I suspect it's a net loss in the long run for things that require or benefit from deep work.

colordrops 8y ago
SpaceX uses tightly packed open plan.
- izzydata 8y ago
  Unfortunate. We'd already be living on Mars if they got their own cubes / offices.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Even the people who do the hard engineering? In most companies the number of people who do that work is pretty small.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    Yes, specifically engineering.
barrkel 8y ago
The transition from more waterfall-like projects to more agile-like, with feature-factory bitesize nibbles of work, seems to me to be predicated on less deep work. The unit of delivery is smaller, so it cannot be meaningfully transformative. Personally I think it's a model that scales better (ie supports more developers being applied to a problem) but requires more brute force modularity to contain the lack of system design that comes from lack of deep thinking (and thus we get microservices).

jessemillar 8y ago

My illogical hope is that one day we'll have the ability to run "simulations" in parallel universes so we actually can prove that option X was better in the long term than option Y.

sucrose 8y ago
Either way, there's still too many variables. If a company's ROI drops after changing to an open work-space... some variables off the top: decreased product quality/quantity, both/none, competition, consumer needs/wants, all of the above, etc.
joshuagvk 8y ago
Who's to say that this isn't already that simulation? It would certainly explain the preponderance of open offices...

andrewla 8y ago

I think there's also a cargo cult mentality that is really hard to deal with. Many successful companies today started on a shoestring, where the money saved by cramming everyone into the same space allowed the company to grow headcount quickly, and it is really hard to separate the things that contributed to the company's success from the incidentals that arose from its founding.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Do the 400k+ engineers at Google still work in open office elbow to elbow?
- Latteland 8y ago
  They work in open offices but ideally grouped together say 10-15 people grouped in an office with an open door.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  Yes. Even directors don't really have offices. I know at least one VP who doesn't have an office.
  - souprock 8y ago
    Woah. More and more, I'm glad I never took Google up on their interest in me. They absolutely have the money for real private offices, even in their expensive location.

xiphias2 8y ago

Wall prices don't matter at all, it's all about real estate space. Actually at a big Co I was working at they took out the walls to fit more people.

falcolas 8y ago

The cost is lower, since you're looking at around 60-100 square ft per employee as opposed to 100-150 sq ft for an office. That said, even in New York or SF (say, ~$80 per sq ft per year), that's still well under $8,000 per year per employee. That is, less than 4% of the average software developer salary cost in those same locations. Of course, the follow-on argument is typically "but we can't find enough sq ft of office space in one location!" to which I say: hundreds of businesses do this every day, what makes you special? Stop making excuses and invest in your assets.

coldcode 8y ago

Two jobs ago we were crammed into open office like sardines. The city even complained that they gave the company permission to build the buildings based on X occupants, but we had 2X. Some people had to park a mile away from the offices on a street. Yet the city wanted the tax revenue and looked the other way.