3 ms·

If two things correlate, it doesn't mean that there's a causal link between them; it means that there's a third thing that causes both of them. Those companies

by CHY872 11y ago

If two things correlate, it doesn't mean that there's a causal link between them; it means that there's a third thing that causes both of them. Those companies who pioneered the open office plans also do a lot of other things that set themselves apart from other companies. It doesn't necessarily mean anything important. For all you know, the open plan office could be a failed attempt to optimise their workforce.

calinet6 11y ago
For all you know, it could be a successful attempt. It's extremely difficult to determine causality in a highly complex system such as a company. That's the point, and that's why I posed the question.
- CHY872 11y ago
  Then your argument degenerates. What you've said isn't factually incorrect, but it's boring; you've picked a property that no one can possibly prove or disprove (but that is obviously not true) and used that as an argument against the analytical method in general. It's boring for two reasons; firstly because it doesn't allow you to make any decision at all based off it - it's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Secondly, it's not a fact you need to know in order to judge success; there are many proxies for 'better/worse' which can be tested and quantified. These are widely used by big companies in order to optimise their workforces. The reason that it's not really done in tech is simply because they're so much smaller, and so the benefit of someone spending the time on devising and performing such tests is lower.
  - calinet6 11y ago
    That's the entire point: no one can possibly prove or disprove that open office plans are a significant contributing factor to company success, or if they're just correlated, or if they're entirely irrelevant. Yet the popular story here is that they're highly detrimental and have a causal relationship with low productivity. That might be true for individuals, but we have no evidence (as far as I know) that it's true at an organizational level. The benefits to the company from a systems perspective could far outweigh the difference in individual productivity. We don't know, yet people act as though that systems view is not relevant. I'm not making an argument, anyway, I'm pointing out a hole in the analysis: there are factors that are possibly involved that are more difficult to quantify that everyone seems to be alright with just ignoring. My hunch is that the lack of quantifiability of the cultural, social, and human factors resulting from office plans makes them a blind spot for people with more logical/analytical perspectives, like yourself. I fail to see how that's boring or irrelevant.

by CHY872 11y ago

calinet6 11y ago

For all you know, it could be a successful attempt. It's extremely difficult to determine causality in a highly complex system such as a company. That's the point, and that's why I posed the question.

CHY872 11y ago
Then your argument degenerates. What you've said isn't factually incorrect, but it's boring; you've picked a property that no one can possibly prove or disprove (but that is obviously not true) and used that as an argument against the analytical method in general. It's boring for two reasons; firstly because it doesn't allow you to make any decision at all based off it - it's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Secondly, it's not a fact you need to know in order to judge success; there are many proxies for 'better/worse' which can be tested and quantified. These are widely used by big companies in order to optimise their workforces. The reason that it's not really done in tech is simply because they're so much smaller, and so the benefit of someone spending the time on devising and performing such tests is lower.
- calinet6 11y ago
  That's the entire point: no one can possibly prove or disprove that open office plans are a significant contributing factor to company success, or if they're just correlated, or if they're entirely irrelevant. Yet the popular story here is that they're highly detrimental and have a causal relationship with low productivity. That might be true for individuals, but we have no evidence (as far as I know) that it's true at an organizational level. The benefits to the company from a systems perspective could far outweigh the difference in individual productivity. We don't know, yet people act as though that systems view is not relevant. I'm not making an argument, anyway, I'm pointing out a hole in the analysis: there are factors that are possibly involved that are more difficult to quantify that everyone seems to be alright with just ignoring. My hunch is that the lack of quantifiability of the cultural, social, and human factors resulting from office plans makes them a blind spot for people with more logical/analytical perspectives, like yourself. I fail to see how that's boring or irrelevant.