5 ms·

I've worked in every possible configuration, and I've watched teams work in every possible configuration. I don't like open-plan, but it tentatively appears to

I've worked in every possible configuration, and I've watched teams work in every possible configuration. I don't like open-plan, but it tentatively appears to be most effective for organizations as a whole. Some initial conclusions: - We'd be wise to distinguish what we'd all like to have as an office from what actually functions best in a larger system. It is erroneous to think that simply because you like something means it's always the best policy for everybody. Sometimes local non-optimizations need to be made to optimize the system as a whole. - Open-plan environments are nowhere near being a determining factor in team performance, but they can be an important add-on. So sure, if your company is too cheap for offices, treat teams like slaves, and just wants to cram as many people possible into the smallest space? Then that's going to suck. But that's going to suck anyway. I'd just be really careful about confusing "stuff I think is cool" from "stuff that works the best for everybody concerned" I'd also be careful about over-generalizing. A big hunk of this is team, project, company, technology, and building specific. - As long as you're adapting, you could end up with any kind of office space. But just as an informed guess, co-located open plan is where I'd start, then adapt from there. - The worse thing you can do is start with a pre-conceived notion of what works and didn't and then try to force reality to conform to it.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I see office environment as a proxy for willingness to expend effort and time in making high performance teams and letting them get on with it. If a management tier is unwilling to spend money arranging desks to avoid constant interruptions that common sense tells us will be detrimental, then it is a management tier that is unlikely to have been a blip and then make all other decisions well. Google Ed Catmull, the quiet co-founder of Pixar, interviewed at economist conference 2010 - it is far and away the best example of simple focus on getting teams to work well - no "do it my way" but plenty of "if the team is functioning well there are enough good people in it to over one anything"
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I'm simply saying that performance -- as measured by the team itself -- may be maximized by the team deciding to do things that it finds uncomfortable. You also don't always optimize overall performance by optimizing individual performance. There's also the issue of communication versus productivity. Communication is a far greater obstacle to many technology team's success than individual productivity. Bunch o' guys working by themselves in a nice, quiet cushy office doesn't give you the cross-talk, annoyance, problem-solving and innovative banter you get by putting them all together. Sometimes doing things you find annoying or troublesome is actually the best way to reach your goals. Surely this isn't a new observation.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    Agree on the communication (I say honesty - you can communicate all day but if you are not feeling therapy-level angst about saying the things you are saying out loud, then no one is getting to the root of the problems and they will never get dealt with) Not too sure about the optimising for individual vs team performance. Teams seem to do best when it's obvious everyone has to play their very best game. The times when it's necessary to sacrifice for the good of the team are a hell of a lot less frequent than the times you just need to know task A will get done because Fred is on the case and Fred has a history of delivering. Stops everyone trying to worry about everything. Edit: the sentence I'm not sure we are not disagreeing either does not make enough sense to keep.
davesims 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. What people complain about is not necessarily an indication of what's not working. My last two gigs have been open-plan, and I prefer it much more than closed-cube spaces. If your team is working as it should, and is in close proximity to project/product management, with a good process and a healthy level of trust between the stakeholders and between the various engineers, then in my experience open-plan is far better, because the quality of communication is high, the general focus of the team is high, and there's less background noise "distraction", because the cross-talk is usually relevant and on-task, and has a higher likelihood of being pertinent to the job at hand. Open plan offices work well when the team is already working well. However, if there's broken processes, unfocussed coworkers, and a general level of distrust between team members or across teams, then the background chatter becomes exponentially more distracting and frustrating. Unfortunately most teams tend towards the latter and not the former. In other words -- in my limited, anecdotal experience (last 5 years, two large open-plan teams; 10 years before that in closed or hybrid), high-functioning teams tend to thrive on the cross-talk and constant communication that open plan creates organically. Lower-functioning teams on the other hand have done better when the natural barriers of walls and closed doors limit unnecessary distractions and create healthier boundaries. So it's not surprising to me that the study shows more instances of teams unhappy with open plans; it's certainly not for everybody. But the best teams I've been on have absolutely thrived in that environment.
- geoka9 13y ago
  > high-functioning teams tend to thrive on the cross-talk and constant communication that open plan creates organically. I wonder how programmers in such environments can get in the "zone" and stay in it for extended periods of time, if they are being "constantly communicated with".
  - uxp 13y ago
    I'm in a team that benefits from an open space and frequent chair swivel initiated conversations. Thankfully my chair has wheels and my laptop a headphone jack because it's not terribly difficult to go sit in a corner.
  - 13y ago
keithpeter 13y ago
"I don't like open-plan, but it tentatively appears to be most effective for organizations as a whole." The original article is quoting peer-reviewed research that tends to support the opposite of your opinion. What do you think is wrong with the methodology employed in the OA?
- davesims 13y ago
  For my part, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the article (and I would need to read through the whole paper to know for sure), but I agree that most teams probably don't function well with open concept offices, but imo that's likely a function of how (in my experience), lower-functioning teams are probably made worse by unfocused background conversation. Again, my sampling is based on the good fortune of working on really good, highly talented and focused teams. It's not perfect and certainly after months and years on the same team, you can lose perspective and think some things are worse (or better) than they really are. But I've been on really disfunctional teams as well, and some teams that I'd say were "in between". For those latter teams, I wouldn't recommend open-plan. To me, open plan is a high-risk, high reward proposition that takes commitment from the top down to make work over the long haul. But in my experience, the reward is high, and I really do prefer it.
- paulhodge 13y ago
  I can help with that: "Workers in open-plan offices get sick more often" - Only supported by one study done in Denmark. Not enough research. "Open-plan offices are less productive" - Supported by a study which only identified some of the negative effects of a open-office plan (such as the effect of irrelevant speech). That study didn't attempt to measure the benefits of an open office, or attempt to exhaustively list all of the effects of an open office, so it doesn't speak to the overall effect on efficiency. All the other claims were either focused on employee opinions or were about things other than an open office plan. You can guess what my opinion here is. At my previous company, the floor plan had both offices and a wide open area, so we could choose where to sit. I picked the open area and loved it. Being able to eavesdrop on the status of other teams, or having really easy group communication (as easy as yelling across the room) was incredibly valuable. I think the open office is especially nice in our industry since we really tend to suffer from under-communication and a lack of cross-team networking. Anyway some folks at our company chose small offices and I think they enjoyed it. The ideal floor plan would have a mix of both I think. But I don't think Facebook's new one-giant-open-area building is nearly as awful as people make it out to be.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I see office environment as a proxy for willingness to expend effort and time in making high performance teams and letting them get on with it. If a management tier is unwilling to spend money arranging desks to avoid constant interruptions that common sense tells us will be detrimental, then it is a management tier that is unlikely to have been a blip and then make all other decisions well. Google Ed Catmull, the quiet co-founder of Pixar, interviewed at economist conference 2010 - it is far and away the best example of simple focus on getting teams to work well - no "do it my way" but plenty of "if the team is functioning well there are enough good people in it to over one anything"

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I'm simply saying that performance -- as measured by the team itself -- may be maximized by the team deciding to do things that it finds uncomfortable. You also don't always optimize overall performance by optimizing individual performance. There's also the issue of communication versus productivity. Communication is a far greater obstacle to many technology team's success than individual productivity. Bunch o' guys working by themselves in a nice, quiet cushy office doesn't give you the cross-talk, annoyance, problem-solving and innovative banter you get by putting them all together. Sometimes doing things you find annoying or troublesome is actually the best way to reach your goals. Surely this isn't a new observation.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Agree on the communication (I say honesty - you can communicate all day but if you are not feeling therapy-level angst about saying the things you are saying out loud, then no one is getting to the root of the problems and they will never get dealt with) Not too sure about the optimising for individual vs team performance. Teams seem to do best when it's obvious everyone has to play their very best game. The times when it's necessary to sacrifice for the good of the team are a hell of a lot less frequent than the times you just need to know task A will get done because Fred is on the case and Fred has a history of delivering. Stops everyone trying to worry about everything. Edit: the sentence I'm not sure we are not disagreeing either does not make enough sense to keep.

davesims 13y ago

Couldn't agree more. What people complain about is not necessarily an indication of what's not working. My last two gigs have been open-plan, and I prefer it much more than closed-cube spaces. If your team is working as it should, and is in close proximity to project/product management, with a good process and a healthy level of trust between the stakeholders and between the various engineers, then in my experience open-plan is far better, because the quality of communication is high, the general focus of the team is high, and there's less background noise "distraction", because the cross-talk is usually relevant and on-task, and has a higher likelihood of being pertinent to the job at hand. Open plan offices work well when the team is already working well. However, if there's broken processes, unfocussed coworkers, and a general level of distrust between team members or across teams, then the background chatter becomes exponentially more distracting and frustrating. Unfortunately most teams tend towards the latter and not the former. In other words -- in my limited, anecdotal experience (last 5 years, two large open-plan teams; 10 years before that in closed or hybrid), high-functioning teams tend to thrive on the cross-talk and constant communication that open plan creates organically. Lower-functioning teams on the other hand have done better when the natural barriers of walls and closed doors limit unnecessary distractions and create healthier boundaries. So it's not surprising to me that the study shows more instances of teams unhappy with open plans; it's certainly not for everybody. But the best teams I've been on have absolutely thrived in that environment.

geoka9 13y ago
> high-functioning teams tend to thrive on the cross-talk and constant communication that open plan creates organically. I wonder how programmers in such environments can get in the "zone" and stay in it for extended periods of time, if they are being "constantly communicated with".
- uxp 13y ago
  I'm in a team that benefits from an open space and frequent chair swivel initiated conversations. Thankfully my chair has wheels and my laptop a headphone jack because it's not terribly difficult to go sit in a corner.
- 13y ago

keithpeter 13y ago

"I don't like open-plan, but it tentatively appears to be most effective for organizations as a whole." The original article is quoting peer-reviewed research that tends to support the opposite of your opinion. What do you think is wrong with the methodology employed in the OA?

davesims 13y ago
For my part, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the article (and I would need to read through the whole paper to know for sure), but I agree that most teams probably don't function well with open concept offices, but imo that's likely a function of how (in my experience), lower-functioning teams are probably made worse by unfocused background conversation. Again, my sampling is based on the good fortune of working on really good, highly talented and focused teams. It's not perfect and certainly after months and years on the same team, you can lose perspective and think some things are worse (or better) than they really are. But I've been on really disfunctional teams as well, and some teams that I'd say were "in between". For those latter teams, I wouldn't recommend open-plan. To me, open plan is a high-risk, high reward proposition that takes commitment from the top down to make work over the long haul. But in my experience, the reward is high, and I really do prefer it.
paulhodge 13y ago
I can help with that: "Workers in open-plan offices get sick more often" - Only supported by one study done in Denmark. Not enough research. "Open-plan offices are less productive" - Supported by a study which only identified some of the negative effects of a open-office plan (such as the effect of irrelevant speech). That study didn't attempt to measure the benefits of an open office, or attempt to exhaustively list all of the effects of an open office, so it doesn't speak to the overall effect on efficiency. All the other claims were either focused on employee opinions or were about things other than an open office plan. You can guess what my opinion here is. At my previous company, the floor plan had both offices and a wide open area, so we could choose where to sit. I picked the open area and loved it. Being able to eavesdrop on the status of other teams, or having really easy group communication (as easy as yelling across the room) was incredibly valuable. I think the open office is especially nice in our industry since we really tend to suffer from under-communication and a lack of cross-team networking. Anyway some folks at our company chose small offices and I think they enjoyed it. The ideal floor plan would have a mix of both I think. But I don't think Facebook's new one-giant-open-area building is nearly as awful as people make it out to be.