24 ms·

There's also a right way and a wrong way to disseminate information within a team that doesn't require a work environment that's detrimental to productivity (co

by zzalpha 12y ago

There's also a right way and a wrong way to disseminate information within a team that doesn't require a work environment that's detrimental to productivity (code reviews and pair programming immediately come to mind). Open plans as a way to avoid "siloing" is the wrong solution to a much bigger problem.

nickbauman 12y ago
The most important thing in software is that humans build software systems. And that they need to communicate with as high-fidelity and efficiency possible. Often that works with small teams that are co-located without doors. If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. That's the idea here. But it can work with closed doors, too; especially as the product matures (or, heh, ossifies).
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Often that works with small teams that are co-located without doors. If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. The flipside is that, if you spend a half hour figuring something out instead of interrupting me, you don't interrupt my flow, which could translate into a much greater reduction in productivity than if you'd just dealt with it yourself. Put another way: open offices make it too easy to interrupt someone else. In our space we find a balance with electronic communication. Two person offices reduce distraction. IRC and email serve as a middle ground to interruption (as folks on the receiving end can control when the interruption occurs). Interruptions in meatspace only occur when they're actually necessary. Edit: And I forgot the other big benefit: two person offices mean you can co-locate people who work in the same product area, and when broader discussions need to happen, the offices can double as meeting spaces without everyone else being interrupted by the conversation. So offices actually assist in facilitating communication as the threat of distracting others is substantially reduced.
  - nickbauman 12y ago
    "Could" translate. Not "Does" translate. Turn this around again. What's more valuable: your productivity or the overall team productivity? Open offices don't have to be a place where it's "too easy to interrupt", but I agree they often are.
    - zzalpha 12y ago
      I'll put my money on "does". If you don't interrupt me, you lose 30 minutes of your time solving your problem (and, by the way, learn to learn along the way). If you do interrupt me, you save yourself, say, 25 minutes, while I probably lose 60 minutes of effective flow time ("gee, I'm distracted now, might as well go to the bathroom and get another coffee while I'm at it... oh hey, look some emails, let's take a look at those..."). And that's ignoring the distraction you create for all the folks around me as you come and ask your question. So in terms of overall team productivity (which is a function of the individual productivity levels of the team members), I will happily take the bet that open offices are far worse than closed ones in the the scenario you've proposed.
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      You're basically saying that your productivity is more important than someone else's productivity.
- thoughtsimple 12y ago
  "If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it." That seems very inefficient for most questions. Why not ask online instead?
  - jmccree 12y ago
    Every time this comes up, I just don't get it. Pop the question into your team chat, work on something else for a bit, and come back to that issue after you've got your answer.
- aluhut 12y ago
  That is a nice analogy. Let's add some human to it. How about disturbed close communication? Because of stress through noise or by a misheard conversation. Annoyances lead to new communication problems. The open offices I saw in my career were filled with people wearing headphones wherever it was allowed. Which brings us back to just getting more people in less space... I wonder what happened to the health aspect of this. How about walking over? Where is the problem? Pro Tip: take the stairs. You can even sit down then if there is enough space for a second chair.
- mathgeek 12y ago
  > If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. That's the idea here. The opposing idea is that in the long-term picture, choosing to spend more time now in order to figure it out yourself leads to developing the very skills that will let you avoid needing help in the future. Much like coding every day makes you a better coder, debugging things yourself makes you a better debugger.

by zzalpha 12y ago

nickbauman 12y ago

The most important thing in software is that humans build software systems. And that they need to communicate with as high-fidelity and efficiency possible. Often that works with small teams that are co-located without doors. If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. That's the idea here. But it can work with closed doors, too; especially as the product matures (or, heh, ossifies).

zzalpha 12y ago
Often that works with small teams that are co-located without doors. If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. The flipside is that, if you spend a half hour figuring something out instead of interrupting me, you don't interrupt my flow, which could translate into a much greater reduction in productivity than if you'd just dealt with it yourself. Put another way: open offices make it too easy to interrupt someone else. In our space we find a balance with electronic communication. Two person offices reduce distraction. IRC and email serve as a middle ground to interruption (as folks on the receiving end can control when the interruption occurs). Interruptions in meatspace only occur when they're actually necessary. Edit: And I forgot the other big benefit: two person offices mean you can co-locate people who work in the same product area, and when broader discussions need to happen, the offices can double as meeting spaces without everyone else being interrupted by the conversation. So offices actually assist in facilitating communication as the threat of distracting others is substantially reduced.
- nickbauman 12y ago
  "Could" translate. Not "Does" translate. Turn this around again. What's more valuable: your productivity or the overall team productivity? Open offices don't have to be a place where it's "too easy to interrupt", but I agree they often are.
  - zzalpha 12y ago
    I'll put my money on "does". If you don't interrupt me, you lose 30 minutes of your time solving your problem (and, by the way, learn to learn along the way). If you do interrupt me, you save yourself, say, 25 minutes, while I probably lose 60 minutes of effective flow time ("gee, I'm distracted now, might as well go to the bathroom and get another coffee while I'm at it... oh hey, look some emails, let's take a look at those..."). And that's ignoring the distraction you create for all the folks around me as you come and ask your question. So in terms of overall team productivity (which is a function of the individual productivity levels of the team members), I will happily take the bet that open offices are far worse than closed ones in the the scenario you've proposed.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    You're basically saying that your productivity is more important than someone else's productivity.
thoughtsimple 12y ago
"If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it." That seems very inefficient for most questions. Why not ask online instead?
- jmccree 12y ago
  Every time this comes up, I just don't get it. Pop the question into your team chat, work on something else for a bit, and come back to that issue after you've got your answer.
aluhut 12y ago
That is a nice analogy. Let's add some human to it. How about disturbed close communication? Because of stress through noise or by a misheard conversation. Annoyances lead to new communication problems. The open offices I saw in my career were filled with people wearing headphones wherever it was allowed. Which brings us back to just getting more people in less space... I wonder what happened to the health aspect of this. How about walking over? Where is the problem? Pro Tip: take the stairs. You can even sit down then if there is enough space for a second chair.
mathgeek 12y ago
> If I have to get up to ask you a question, I might not ask it. I might spend then next 1/2 hour trying to read code. Maybe I'll figure it out but you could have just told me in 15 seconds. That's the idea here. The opposing idea is that in the long-term picture, choosing to spend more time now in order to figure it out yourself leads to developing the very skills that will let you avoid needing help in the future. Much like coding every day makes you a better coder, debugging things yourself makes you a better debugger.