7 ms·

Open plan offices worked great; it’s just that the promotors of it were lying about why they were doing it. The main point of an open plan office is to reduce

Open plan offices worked great; it’s just that the promotors of it were lying about why they were doing it. The main point of an open plan office is to reduce the cost of said office. That’s it. Everything else is about trying to find a nice, polite fiction about productivity and communication.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs, not even in super dense urban centers. To boot, many tech companies actively spend money to tear down privacy features and install open plan features, even when there is no growth plan or need for higher worker density per square foot, often even splurging ridiculous money to make the office have excessively opulent features like gourmet dining, coffee bars, alcohol bars, roof decks, etc. - despite hugely financial losses from the destructive effect on productivity and lack of privacy. Offices are not chosen for short term cost savings, except possibly very early stage startups. Beyond that, offices are juvenile shrines to the company executives and founders.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs Source? I can't imagine there would be enough space for individual offices larger than a phonebooth per employee in the same space as open offices. Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for the move fast and beak things type of companies, open offices are not only about cost, but about the ease to move people and teams around instantly as projects/resources change and more people are onboarded without having to constantly tear down and erect walls to accommodate the various sized teams.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    Sorry, I’m not going to google it for you and filter out the confirmation bias effect. This topic has been debated so extensively that it’s no longer acceptable to throw in a super lazy “citation needed” kind of rhetorical deflection. The burden of proof runs the other way. It’s mundane and uncontroversial to state that open plan offices fail to save money. If someone wants to claim the opposite, they need to bring extraordinary evidence.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      If it's been debated so much and so obvious, a reference should be trivial to supply. That it isn't doesn't point towards someone else's laziness (how are they to know what aspects of the arguments you think are correct and which are "confirmation bias?), but instead towards the topic probably not being as decided as you seem to think.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, truly and emphatically not. People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. As a rhetorical device it’s critical to not treat that as legitimate, especially for well-known subjects. It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates.
        kbenson 6y ago
        > People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. First, that isn't always used as a rhetorical device as you state. Sometimes (a lot of times) it's people asking so they can look for themselves, either to confirm the data or educate themselves as to how they are wrong. Second, why does anything you say on the subject have weight? Do people know who you are, and have you previously shown yourself to be an authority on the subject in question? If not, why would you expect someone to take your word as fact when no evidence is supplied, and no reasoning is either? Would you accept the same from me? If you look closely, the person that asked for a source noted why they thought it would be otherwise. Instead of reading it as "you're wrong and I'm going to use a rhetorical trick to eat up your time" I read it as "where can I read more, since this goes counter to my intuition, which I just laid out for you." > It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates. If you can't back up your statements, don't make those statement as fact. That also avoids citation spam debates, as those that aren't actually contributing don't contribute to the spam. Citations aren't spam, they lend credibility and facts to a debate. Having a lot of them on both sides at least lets people see more details on the subject. Unsupported assertions of fact? Those are spam. These aren't school essays, these are conversations with other people. Taking a definitive stance in a discussion without the facts to back them up isn't conducive to a useful discussion here, or likely anywhere, from what I've seen.
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
Google never cared about costs. It bought Boston Dynamics as a personal playground for Andy Rubin, and then when Rubin was exposed as a serial harasser, they gave him a $90m severance package.
- warent 6y ago
  Google cares very much about cost. That's why they always terminate their own projects and services even if people enjoy them. They just happen to care more about their friends.
29athrowaway 6y ago
For most programmers, open plan offices are too noisy. Joel Spolsky said it in 2000 in his "Joel test". https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s... (see #8)
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > For most programmers, open plan offices are too noisy. > Joel Spolsky said it in 2000 in his "Joel test". What makes Joel Spolsky so certain? And what makes you so certain he's right? It's all just personal opinions.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    There is research (IBM) that found at 10-15% improvement with offices vs open plan.
marmaduke 6y ago
We have to move people to space (filled with old weird lab and office rooms) and are considering open space simply because it’ll be many months sooner we can move, since only demolition is required.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Similarly, rearranging teams is much easier and faster in an open plan office. One of the big issues here is that developer happiness and productivity doesn’t show up clearly on a balance sheet, which is why open plan offices continue to dominate.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Is it really easier? In an open office you more or less have to sit by your team to not be disturbed by standups and other BS cermonies that really should be in an meeting room or someones office. With single office there is no rush to move at all.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Easier for the team rearranging things, not you.
  - marmaduke 6y ago
    I think they show up just lower than “can we fit everyone in the office space available”.
wdr1 6y ago
That's not true. I'm an engineering director involved in planning space for 5,000+ software engineers. I went into this strongly preferring individual offices, or a shared office of 2-4 people. We spent a lot of time talking to people over the past year (before COVID). What I learned was pretty surprising: (1) Most of our people prefered an open floor plan. They like the sense of community that comes with it. (2) People hate "noise", but what they consider noise is interesting. They like noise from their own team. It helps them stayed plugged in & informed. What they hate is noise from other teams. Stepping back it makes sense. If Alice is talk to Bob about Foo, and Charlie works on Foo, he's glad he overhear it. On the other hand if Danielle is on another team & has never heard of Foo, it's just a distraction. So in the end, despite starting out as basically hating open floor plan, that's what we're doing & I'm strongly supportive. We're still being thoughtful about noise, and will have ways so teams don't hear the noise of other teams, but we're basically doing an open floor plan. And while there are a lot of cost considerations, it wasn't a factor at all in making this decision. (And, fwiw, I still retain my own personal preference for individual offices, but I'll have a desk in the open just like everyone else.)
- m0zg 6y ago
  Por que no los dos? Give offices to those who need to focus and open plan to those who like getting distracted all day. Seems like a win-win to me. What's with this dogmatic "everyone must sit in a bull pen" trend?
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I assume you are getting downvoted for tone, but the idea itself seems reasonable.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  I do wonder if some of the preference is dependent on stage-of-life too. When I was younger and had fewer friends I enjoyed open offices more. As an older employee with a family and more non-work friendships the disadvantages of open plans are more obvious
v7p1Qbt1im 6y ago
I doubt that. All the evidence would suggest Google is maximizing employee comfort anf productivity to the exclusion of all else. They are already spending literal billions on real estate in pretty much all the most expensive metro areas in the world. If they thought smaller offices were more successful they’d do it. Pretty sure that the success of open floor plan is based on solid scientific evidence. Personally I enjoy working in open floor plan. It’s only when I’m having a bad day I don’t feel like it. But I wouldn’t feel like being in any kind of office environment at that point.
- vl 6y ago
  Google is actually notoriously bad at office and capacity planning. Over the years, significant chunks of time, my teams were literally sitting in hallways. Usually it’s impossible to book a meeting room, and so on. Basically problems like this are not easily quantifiable and nobody gets bad review because of this, so they don’t get solved.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs, not even in super dense urban centers. To boot, many tech companies actively spend money to tear down privacy features and install open plan features, even when there is no growth plan or need for higher worker density per square foot, often even splurging ridiculous money to make the office have excessively opulent features like gourmet dining, coffee bars, alcohol bars, roof decks, etc. - despite hugely financial losses from the destructive effect on productivity and lack of privacy. Offices are not chosen for short term cost savings, except possibly very early stage startups. Beyond that, offices are juvenile shrines to the company executives and founders.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs Source? I can't imagine there would be enough space for individual offices larger than a phonebooth per employee in the same space as open offices. Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for the move fast and beak things type of companies, open offices are not only about cost, but about the ease to move people and teams around instantly as projects/resources change and more people are onboarded without having to constantly tear down and erect walls to accommodate the various sized teams.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Sorry, I’m not going to google it for you and filter out the confirmation bias effect. This topic has been debated so extensively that it’s no longer acceptable to throw in a super lazy “citation needed” kind of rhetorical deflection. The burden of proof runs the other way. It’s mundane and uncontroversial to state that open plan offices fail to save money. If someone wants to claim the opposite, they need to bring extraordinary evidence.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    If it's been debated so much and so obvious, a reference should be trivial to supply. That it isn't doesn't point towards someone else's laziness (how are they to know what aspects of the arguments you think are correct and which are "confirmation bias?), but instead towards the topic probably not being as decided as you seem to think.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      No, truly and emphatically not. People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. As a rhetorical device it’s critical to not treat that as legitimate, especially for well-known subjects. It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        > People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. First, that isn't always used as a rhetorical device as you state. Sometimes (a lot of times) it's people asking so they can look for themselves, either to confirm the data or educate themselves as to how they are wrong. Second, why does anything you say on the subject have weight? Do people know who you are, and have you previously shown yourself to be an authority on the subject in question? If not, why would you expect someone to take your word as fact when no evidence is supplied, and no reasoning is either? Would you accept the same from me? If you look closely, the person that asked for a source noted why they thought it would be otherwise. Instead of reading it as "you're wrong and I'm going to use a rhetorical trick to eat up your time" I read it as "where can I read more, since this goes counter to my intuition, which I just laid out for you." > It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates. If you can't back up your statements, don't make those statement as fact. That also avoids citation spam debates, as those that aren't actually contributing don't contribute to the spam. Citations aren't spam, they lend credibility and facts to a debate. Having a lot of them on both sides at least lets people see more details on the subject. Unsupported assertions of fact? Those are spam. These aren't school essays, these are conversations with other people. Taking a definitive stance in a discussion without the facts to back them up isn't conducive to a useful discussion here, or likely anywhere, from what I've seen.

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

Google never cared about costs. It bought Boston Dynamics as a personal playground for Andy Rubin, and then when Rubin was exposed as a serial harasser, they gave him a $90m severance package.

warent 6y ago
Google cares very much about cost. That's why they always terminate their own projects and services even if people enjoy them. They just happen to care more about their friends.

29athrowaway 6y ago

For most programmers, open plan offices are too noisy. Joel Spolsky said it in 2000 in his "Joel test". https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s... (see #8)

chrisseaton 6y ago
> For most programmers, open plan offices are too noisy. > Joel Spolsky said it in 2000 in his "Joel test". What makes Joel Spolsky so certain? And what makes you so certain he's right? It's all just personal opinions.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  There is research (IBM) that found at 10-15% improvement with offices vs open plan.

marmaduke 6y ago

We have to move people to space (filled with old weird lab and office rooms) and are considering open space simply because it’ll be many months sooner we can move, since only demolition is required.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Similarly, rearranging teams is much easier and faster in an open plan office. One of the big issues here is that developer happiness and productivity doesn’t show up clearly on a balance sheet, which is why open plan offices continue to dominate.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Is it really easier? In an open office you more or less have to sit by your team to not be disturbed by standups and other BS cermonies that really should be in an meeting room or someones office. With single office there is no rush to move at all.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Easier for the team rearranging things, not you.
- marmaduke 6y ago
  I think they show up just lower than “can we fit everyone in the office space available”.

wdr1 6y ago

That's not true. I'm an engineering director involved in planning space for 5,000+ software engineers. I went into this strongly preferring individual offices, or a shared office of 2-4 people. We spent a lot of time talking to people over the past year (before COVID). What I learned was pretty surprising: (1) Most of our people prefered an open floor plan. They like the sense of community that comes with it. (2) People hate "noise", but what they consider noise is interesting. They like noise from their own team. It helps them stayed plugged in & informed. What they hate is noise from other teams. Stepping back it makes sense. If Alice is talk to Bob about Foo, and Charlie works on Foo, he's glad he overhear it. On the other hand if Danielle is on another team & has never heard of Foo, it's just a distraction. So in the end, despite starting out as basically hating open floor plan, that's what we're doing & I'm strongly supportive. We're still being thoughtful about noise, and will have ways so teams don't hear the noise of other teams, but we're basically doing an open floor plan. And while there are a lot of cost considerations, it wasn't a factor at all in making this decision. (And, fwiw, I still retain my own personal preference for individual offices, but I'll have a desk in the open just like everyone else.)

m0zg 6y ago
Por que no los dos? Give offices to those who need to focus and open plan to those who like getting distracted all day. Seems like a win-win to me. What's with this dogmatic "everyone must sit in a bull pen" trend?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I assume you are getting downvoted for tone, but the idea itself seems reasonable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
paulryanrogers 6y ago
I do wonder if some of the preference is dependent on stage-of-life too. When I was younger and had fewer friends I enjoyed open offices more. As an older employee with a family and more non-work friendships the disadvantages of open plans are more obvious

v7p1Qbt1im 6y ago

I doubt that. All the evidence would suggest Google is maximizing employee comfort anf productivity to the exclusion of all else. They are already spending literal billions on real estate in pretty much all the most expensive metro areas in the world. If they thought smaller offices were more successful they’d do it. Pretty sure that the success of open floor plan is based on solid scientific evidence. Personally I enjoy working in open floor plan. It’s only when I’m having a bad day I don’t feel like it. But I wouldn’t feel like being in any kind of office environment at that point.

vl 6y ago
Google is actually notoriously bad at office and capacity planning. Over the years, significant chunks of time, my teams were literally sitting in hallways. Usually it’s impossible to book a meeting room, and so on. Basically problems like this are not easily quantifiable and nobody gets bad review because of this, so they don’t get solved.