5 ms·

It is not impossible. Maybe we can stop talking in absolutes about this issue. We have an open office setup because a) we're small enough that it's not an issu

It is not impossible. Maybe we can stop talking in absolutes about this issue. We have an open office setup because a) we're small enough that it's not an issue (6 people) and b) we can't afford the alternative. Offices are expensive, compared to the alternative. I agree with the article about placement, but I strongly disagree with this constant sentiment that open offices suck. I agree that as we grow we'll need to be able to put space between people, and maybe the cost will become easier to tackle. But for a small company like ours, I find space division is just as often an annoyance as an issue.

frostmatthew 11y ago
> I strongly disagree with this constant sentiment that open offices suck It's not simply sentiment - studies consistently show that they "suck" because they lower productivity, increase stress, cause more sick days, and create higher amounts of worker dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, as for your specific circumstance I fully agree an open office is the most appropriate solution - generally speaking when people discuss open office layouts they're not talking about five or six person startups.
marcosdumay 11y ago
At 6 people you probably have a team office[1]. That's a good thing to have. Put 100 other people there, and you'll get an open plan office. [1] Unless you have talkative positions (like sales), and highly intellectual positions sharing that room - if that's the case, you'd better separate them
derefr 11y ago
> we're small enough that it's not an issue (6 people) That's not an open office. In the discussion of alternatives to open offices, having each team (3-8 people all doing the same thing) in their own office is frequently brought up. This isn't considered an open plan; it's just a sensible design for collaboration. Let me boil down what people are really talking about when they talk about an open office: picture a space where the people doing creative work, the people talking on phones, and the people taking a coffee break are stuck being physically proximate for eight hours per day. Picture all their desks faced so a manager (also sat in the same room) can see their screens, though they can't see his.

frostmatthew 11y ago

> I strongly disagree with this constant sentiment that open offices suck It's not simply sentiment - studies consistently show that they "suck" because they lower productivity, increase stress, cause more sick days, and create higher amounts of worker dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, as for your specific circumstance I fully agree an open office is the most appropriate solution - generally speaking when people discuss open office layouts they're not talking about five or six person startups.

marcosdumay 11y ago

At 6 people you probably have a team office[1]. That's a good thing to have. Put 100 other people there, and you'll get an open plan office. [1] Unless you have talkative positions (like sales), and highly intellectual positions sharing that room - if that's the case, you'd better separate them

derefr 11y ago

> we're small enough that it's not an issue (6 people) That's not an open office. In the discussion of alternatives to open offices, having each team (3-8 people all doing the same thing) in their own office is frequently brought up. This isn't considered an open plan; it's just a sensible design for collaboration. Let me boil down what people are really talking about when they talk about an open office: picture a space where the people doing creative work, the people talking on phones, and the people taking a coffee break are stuck being physically proximate for eight hours per day. Picture all their desks faced so a manager (also sat in the same room) can see their screens, though they can't see his.