4 ms·
* I'm willing to bet that most of those studies looked at what happens when you take some "on-site" positions and simply hand them to remote team members.* You
by adrianhoward 14y ago
* I'm willing to bet that most of those studies looked at what happens when you take some "on-site" positions and simply hand them to remote team members.*
You'd lose that bet. There are a variety of different methodologies and areas studied.
Companies that embrace remoteness from the start (like GitHub) seem to be doing fine, precisely because they treat remoteness as an asses, not a minor concession someone had to make to workers.
Again - not trying to argue at all that people cannot be fantastically successful as a distributed team.
What I am saying is that every single piece of research I can find says that colocated teams are more effective. This is... interesting... to me.
- numbsafari 14y agoHow much of that research includes open source projects and companies like GitHub and 37signals? How much of it was looking at teams that are "super distributed", for example, between the US and India, where major differences in time and culture can play a huge role compared to say, a team distributed between Chicago and New York?
- romaniv 14y agoThese two seem to fall into the category I described: http://possibility.com/Misc/p339-teasley.pdf http://possibility.com/Misc/p339-teasley.pdf http://kraut.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/files/articles/Espinosa07-CoordinationInGlobalSWDevelopment.pdf http://kraut.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/fil... This one does not seem to involve developing software: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014279 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... Remaining two articles are not publicly accessible.