6 ms·

As an interesting example, the people in charge at Facebook seem to be well aware of the downsides of open plan offices. They however consciously choose to lowe

As an interesting example, the people in charge at Facebook seem to be well aware of the downsides of open plan offices. They however consciously choose to lower engineer productivity in exchange for higher openness and visibility. It's actually refreshing how they don't try to pass it as "much better for the developer". It's better for the company as a whole, not so much for the individual: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3119 http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3119 (starts around 11:35)

mayank 13y ago
The open plan is something I don't miss about working at Facebook. You look up over your monitor and see nothing but rows of harsh fluorescent lights. Opinion was definitely mixed, but I was in the camp that found the lack of quiet tiring after a while.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  Let's be honest. If we wanted engineers to be most productive, we would give them quiet, private spaces to work. But that is expensive so we put them in open plan arrangements that cost less and pretend that the main reason it's done is higher productivity.
  - SatvikBeri 13y ago
    As someone who is regularly exposed to these types of decisions, I don't think cost is the reason. Everyone recognizes that engineers are more expensive than office space. Private offices result in engineers getting more done but working on the wrong things, or solving problems in slightly the wrong way. The goal is to expose developers to the organization more so they have a stronger sense of what users/customers value, and can make better decisions. As a rough guess, optimal business value in an enterprise software company probably results from engineers spending 20-40% of their time with users/product managers/other stakeholders and 60-80% of their time actually programming/designing/working with other developers. These numbers are highly imprecise and depend on circumstances, but they're probably in the right order of magnitude. The issue with private offices is that in my experience many engineers will prefer to spend 95% of their time engineering and just 5% of their time understanding the problem. As a result they build more features but the features are significantly less valuable. 2-3 person offices seems to mitigate that pretty well, while open plan offices seem to go way too far in the other direction.
    - kemiller 13y ago
      I've been places that claim exactly that. But if that were really true, then a much more effective way to do that would be to include engineers in the design meetings, the customer feedback sessions, and strategy discussions. In most open plans I've seen, the engineers sit together. That doesn't sound like exposing them to the rest of the business. But I think we're probably in violent agreement here. I like team rooms. Small team including product people, engineers, qa, even support and sales sometimes, in one enclosed space. Much less random noise, and a more focused vibe. Either that or 100% remote with a single shared team chat room.
      - SatvikBeri 13y ago
        We're definitely on the same page. I see a lot of companies frame the choice as binary: open-plan vs. private offices. The most effective methods are usually somewhere in the middle, and depend on the problem & team. Agree that bringing engineers into design/strategy/customer feedback is extremely important and much more effective than just open-plan offices. When engineering, I personally enjoy spending 11 AM - 4 PM interacting with others and 4 PM - 8 PM locked up in a room working on code. I wish that switching around like that were an option in more offices.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      I think it's better to have a culture where engineers naturally feel comfortable leaving their offices. I worked at a company that had 3:00 tea time, like in academic departments. People drank coffee and played board games, but after half an hour, they were talking about work again and the cross-department communication that was needed would happen organically. That's a lot better than subjecting engineers to a 24/7 open-plan arrangement that will, after 8 hours at a stretch, wear on a typical person's nerves and health. I agree with you that 2- or 3-person offices will probably provide enough privacy for most people. Individual offices have their perks, but they do require attention to common spaces and communication to prevent the siloization you talked about.
      - kiskis 13y ago
michaelochurch 13y ago
Open plan is all about the brogrammer macho bullshit. The idea is that if you can't deal with 10+ hours of being on edge due to vertigo-inducing noise and open-back visibility, you're too old/lazy/weak to write code. It's total nonsense and the sooner that attitude dies, the better.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I agree with this. It carries with it a bit of a sense of youthful superiority, and leads countless kids to waste away their twenties all to make someone else rich.
  - nijk 13y ago
    Who do you think Facebook employees made rich?
- the_cat_kittles 13y ago
  Isn't that just the worst of many possible motivations for an open plan? Others being cost, cohesion, aesthetic, exogenous stuff, etc...
codeonfire 13y ago
Thanks, I listened to this excerpt. In my opinion this focus on "be open" is just blather that manifests from peoples desire to be in control. The course doesn't really say how an open floor plan relates to being open, or how to precisely define being open. It's one of those autonomous statements that people come up with to justify their desires. It's like 'be green'. Also, WTF is visibility. Is there business value in being able to see people typing at a computer. This is blind stupidity brought on by bad motives. So the seating arrangement is not for engineer productivity, nor is the benefit of higher openness and visibility for engineers. How exactly is this better for the company? maybe for a few middle managers who themselves who aren't qualified to be engineers but want to get credit for the work being done. To me, it seems like it's only to prevent engineer led projects from getting wings before the non-engineers have set themselves up to take the credit.
silverlake 13y ago
I listened to the snippet (thx for link). That wasn't an explanation, that was a slogan. If the Facebook product already promotes openness, they should dogfood it by having everyone work from home.

mayank 13y ago

The open plan is something I don't miss about working at Facebook. You look up over your monitor and see nothing but rows of harsh fluorescent lights. Opinion was definitely mixed, but I was in the camp that found the lack of quiet tiring after a while.

ryguytilidie 13y ago
Let's be honest. If we wanted engineers to be most productive, we would give them quiet, private spaces to work. But that is expensive so we put them in open plan arrangements that cost less and pretend that the main reason it's done is higher productivity.
- SatvikBeri 13y ago
  As someone who is regularly exposed to these types of decisions, I don't think cost is the reason. Everyone recognizes that engineers are more expensive than office space. Private offices result in engineers getting more done but working on the wrong things, or solving problems in slightly the wrong way. The goal is to expose developers to the organization more so they have a stronger sense of what users/customers value, and can make better decisions. As a rough guess, optimal business value in an enterprise software company probably results from engineers spending 20-40% of their time with users/product managers/other stakeholders and 60-80% of their time actually programming/designing/working with other developers. These numbers are highly imprecise and depend on circumstances, but they're probably in the right order of magnitude. The issue with private offices is that in my experience many engineers will prefer to spend 95% of their time engineering and just 5% of their time understanding the problem. As a result they build more features but the features are significantly less valuable. 2-3 person offices seems to mitigate that pretty well, while open plan offices seem to go way too far in the other direction.
  - kemiller 13y ago
    I've been places that claim exactly that. But if that were really true, then a much more effective way to do that would be to include engineers in the design meetings, the customer feedback sessions, and strategy discussions. In most open plans I've seen, the engineers sit together. That doesn't sound like exposing them to the rest of the business. But I think we're probably in violent agreement here. I like team rooms. Small team including product people, engineers, qa, even support and sales sometimes, in one enclosed space. Much less random noise, and a more focused vibe. Either that or 100% remote with a single shared team chat room.
    - SatvikBeri 13y ago
      We're definitely on the same page. I see a lot of companies frame the choice as binary: open-plan vs. private offices. The most effective methods are usually somewhere in the middle, and depend on the problem & team. Agree that bringing engineers into design/strategy/customer feedback is extremely important and much more effective than just open-plan offices. When engineering, I personally enjoy spending 11 AM - 4 PM interacting with others and 4 PM - 8 PM locked up in a room working on code. I wish that switching around like that were an option in more offices.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    I think it's better to have a culture where engineers naturally feel comfortable leaving their offices. I worked at a company that had 3:00 tea time, like in academic departments. People drank coffee and played board games, but after half an hour, they were talking about work again and the cross-department communication that was needed would happen organically. That's a lot better than subjecting engineers to a 24/7 open-plan arrangement that will, after 8 hours at a stretch, wear on a typical person's nerves and health. I agree with you that 2- or 3-person offices will probably provide enough privacy for most people. Individual offices have their perks, but they do require attention to common spaces and communication to prevent the siloization you talked about.
    - kiskis 13y ago

michaelochurch 13y ago

Open plan is all about the brogrammer macho bullshit. The idea is that if you can't deal with 10+ hours of being on edge due to vertigo-inducing noise and open-back visibility, you're too old/lazy/weak to write code. It's total nonsense and the sooner that attitude dies, the better.

pvnick 13y ago
I agree with this. It carries with it a bit of a sense of youthful superiority, and leads countless kids to waste away their twenties all to make someone else rich.
- nijk 13y ago
  Who do you think Facebook employees made rich?
the_cat_kittles 13y ago
Isn't that just the worst of many possible motivations for an open plan? Others being cost, cohesion, aesthetic, exogenous stuff, etc...

codeonfire 13y ago

Thanks, I listened to this excerpt. In my opinion this focus on "be open" is just blather that manifests from peoples desire to be in control. The course doesn't really say how an open floor plan relates to being open, or how to precisely define being open. It's one of those autonomous statements that people come up with to justify their desires. It's like 'be green'. Also, WTF is visibility. Is there business value in being able to see people typing at a computer. This is blind stupidity brought on by bad motives. So the seating arrangement is not for engineer productivity, nor is the benefit of higher openness and visibility for engineers. How exactly is this better for the company? maybe for a few middle managers who themselves who aren't qualified to be engineers but want to get credit for the work being done. To me, it seems like it's only to prevent engineer led projects from getting wings before the non-engineers have set themselves up to take the credit.

silverlake 13y ago

I listened to the snippet (thx for link). That wasn't an explanation, that was a slogan. If the Facebook product already promotes openness, they should dogfood it by having everyone work from home.