Probably depends on what kind of problems you're working on. If your problem to solve is "Raise this KPI X percent until Y", then probably yeah, wouldn't matter

Probably depends on what kind of problems you're working on. If your problem to solve is "Raise this KPI X percent until Y", then probably yeah, wouldn't matter too much. But if you're doing fundamental research or trying to find grander ideas, then I believe it has some merit. One example is Bell Labs, which architectured their offices in order to facilitate random meetings between people: > However, almost as many fruitful interactions described in the book can be traced to architectural features. Long, wide hallways that had to be traversed to navigate the building were included intentionally, so that chance encounters with colleagues and acquaintances were virtually unavoidable. As Gertner himself put it in a 2012 opinion piece for The New York Times, “a physicist on his way to lunch in the cafeteria was like a magnet rolling past iron filings.” Seems other companies successfully copied this as well: > In 2012, Norwegian telecoms company Telenor decided to investigate the effects of inter-office communication. They convinced their employees to where sociometric badges for the duration of the experiment and identified three metrics: exploration, or interaction with people in other work groups; engagement, or interaction within a workgroup; and energy, the number of interactions overall. They found that a 10 percent increase in exploration by salespeople led to a 10 percent increase in sales. This led to a restructuring of the office coffee stations and cafeteria that increased sales by about $200 million. I don't think it is as "outdated" as you think it is. At least consider that there is no "right" or "wrong" way, companies definitely should play around and see what works for them, rather than following something dogmatic.