4 ms·

I'd imagine game dev is a more collaborative sort of thing, at least at various stages. Where it'd help to be in office, at least to some degree. Maybe they ca

by dmix 3y ago

I'd imagine game dev is a more collaborative sort of thing, at least at various stages. Where it'd help to be in office, at least to some degree. Maybe they can have management require being in office during key parts of projects or for parts of the month. Rather than a mandatory 3 days a week thing across the board.

Pamar 3y ago
Ok but... let's just pull a Pareto here and assume that times requiring the team to be together in the office are 20% of the total working time of any project. You are now paying rent (and utilities) for a space that is severely underutilized for 80% of the time. What about the food catering? The security? Parking space? All these collaterals cannot be dynamically scaled up and down at will.
- dmix 3y ago
  Sure but not all of the business are developers or highly optimized for remote style work. It’s going to vary and keeping the base office can still potentially make sense for larger orgs. Plus you don’t need catering nor the total office size demands when you have 20% utilization at various times. You can offer those perks through monthly stripends not via the office. You can also stripend traveling costs to the office for the allotted monthly group time. Usage can also be coordinated and staggered virtually to manage demand. It’s going to require adapting to a new reality not pigeonholing the old system into the new one just in case people might use the office all at once.
  - Pamar 3y ago
    My comment was trying to address the fact that the current 3-days in the office rules are probably just a coarse grained response to the very real and present problem that companies are facing right now. Downsizing the office space to ensure handle just 20% of the headcount might be the answer, but: a) It will take time b) Getting rid of 80% of your office space is not really that much easier than getting rid of 95% of it, which is why the various companies are trying not to do it at all.

by dmix 3y ago

Pamar 3y ago

Ok but... let's just pull a Pareto here and assume that times requiring the team to be together in the office are 20% of the total working time of any project. You are now paying rent (and utilities) for a space that is severely underutilized for 80% of the time. What about the food catering? The security? Parking space? All these collaterals cannot be dynamically scaled up and down at will.

dmix 3y ago
Sure but not all of the business are developers or highly optimized for remote style work. It’s going to vary and keeping the base office can still potentially make sense for larger orgs. Plus you don’t need catering nor the total office size demands when you have 20% utilization at various times. You can offer those perks through monthly stripends not via the office. You can also stripend traveling costs to the office for the allotted monthly group time. Usage can also be coordinated and staggered virtually to manage demand. It’s going to require adapting to a new reality not pigeonholing the old system into the new one just in case people might use the office all at once.
- Pamar 3y ago
  My comment was trying to address the fact that the current 3-days in the office rules are probably just a coarse grained response to the very real and present problem that companies are facing right now. Downsizing the office space to ensure handle just 20% of the headcount might be the answer, but: a) It will take time b) Getting rid of 80% of your office space is not really that much easier than getting rid of 95% of it, which is why the various companies are trying not to do it at all.