3 ms·

That's what it seems from the comment that as the noise increased, 66% of the zero error workers still found the level acceptable, while only 8% of the one more

by dbcfd 15y ago

That's what it seems from the comment that as the noise increased, 66% of the zero error workers still found the level acceptable, while only 8% of the one more defect workers found the level acceptable. I think it's less tolerance and more focus. Workers that can focus appropriately can store the requisite information to solve the problem in their mind. Those without focus will introduce defects as information not task related is encountered and processed.

CPlatypus 15y ago
Right, the difference became more pronounced, but that doesn't really tell me what I as a planner would want to know. Consider two possible explanations. (1) Some workers who had previously produced defect-free code started producing code with defects as the noise level increased. (2) Some workers who had always produced code with defects started complaining about the noise as well. In one of these cases, keeping noise levels down would make a difference. In the other it would not, and the numbers as given don't tell us which scenario applies. They also don't tell us the relative numbers of noise-tolerant vs. noise-intolerant programmers. If those affected by noise are a small minority, then an employer might make the choice to maximize office density and let those affected "select themselves out" by going elsewhere. OTOH, if just about all programmers are affected, that's not much of an option. If the authors reported that the number of programmers producing defect-free code went from X% at 20dB to Y% at 50dB to Z% at 80dB, then that would be much more useful. Similarly, these studies don't seem to measure time to task completion or ability to complete multiple tasks per day, which would be other factors in such decisions. BTW, this is more than a theoretical issue for me. I'm working at home today because the noise level in my office - due to high density and low partitions - has become utterly intolerable. Just about everyone wears headphones all day, presumably because they feel likewise. I'm a bit disappointed that one of the most-cited studies in this area does not really support any useful conclusions that can be brought to management.

by dbcfd 15y ago

CPlatypus 15y ago

Right, the difference became more pronounced, but that doesn't really tell me what I as a planner would want to know. Consider two possible explanations. (1) Some workers who had previously produced defect-free code started producing code with defects as the noise level increased. (2) Some workers who had always produced code with defects started complaining about the noise as well. In one of these cases, keeping noise levels down would make a difference. In the other it would not, and the numbers as given don't tell us which scenario applies. They also don't tell us the relative numbers of noise-tolerant vs. noise-intolerant programmers. If those affected by noise are a small minority, then an employer might make the choice to maximize office density and let those affected "select themselves out" by going elsewhere. OTOH, if just about all programmers are affected, that's not much of an option. If the authors reported that the number of programmers producing defect-free code went from X% at 20dB to Y% at 50dB to Z% at 80dB, then that would be much more useful. Similarly, these studies don't seem to measure time to task completion or ability to complete multiple tasks per day, which would be other factors in such decisions. BTW, this is more than a theoretical issue for me. I'm working at home today because the noise level in my office - due to high density and low partitions - has become utterly intolerable. Just about everyone wears headphones all day, presumably because they feel likewise. I'm a bit disappointed that one of the most-cited studies in this area does not really support any useful conclusions that can be brought to management.