6 ms·

I think the real reason is 'cost', and the loss of productivity isn't quantifiable anyway; so whomever makes the decision can put an exact number on how much he

I think the real reason is 'cost', and the loss of productivity isn't quantifiable anyway; so whomever makes the decision can put an exact number on how much he 'saved' while being able to ignore the side effects. It's like people who buy solar panels in north england; they think it gives them 'free' energy and they are being 'green', while ignoring completely the carbon footprint of making that panel in the first place; while that panel will /never/ repay itself with the energy it harvests. Going back to open offices (and I'm typing this from one!) I think it's a disaster. There are days when all I can really do is read HN, as there's about 3 loud conversations within 5 meters of me, including one Italian guy who's yelling into his skype microphone.

bane 11y ago
This is basically it. There's a thing I've noticed, I like to call it the "inverted reason list". It's an upside-down ordered list of reasons to do something, delivered to a skeptical or hostile audience. The list is ordered such that reasons the audience will like are delivered first, as if they are the most important, and the reasons the audience will hate are delivered at the end, as a side-thought. "and oh....it turns out open offices will save us $5m a year in facilities costs." is usually delivered at the end, when nobody is paying attention anymore, because it was preceded by "free snacks at every 25th cube!" and "will allow you to configure seating to keep your team near you" For work that requires lots of talking (or not lots of deep thinking), they work "ok", but for knowledge work, they're basically the worst idea ever conceived outside of sending all your coders to rock concerts all work day and wondering why nothing is getting done. Where I work, most people get or split offices, but we can work in a few other places, including an open work area. Most people hate working there because it will inevitably have somebody on speaker phone having an argument with their health insurance over an unpaid bill, and that conversation will go on for 2 or 3 weeks solid. Appeals to management have basically been ignored, and now we're getting ready to move to a new facility that's all open space.
rtpg 11y ago
But couldn't that be solved through office culture? Simply telling people "skype calls happen somewhere else"? Though obviously it would take a lot of work to get everyone to agree that that is the "best" culture. Especially for people who talk for a living (customer service, sales) Surely you have an empty conference room somewhere
- rayiner 11y ago
  Isn't that ironic? Advocating going to a conference room so you can be alone and concentrate?
  - brlewis 11y ago
    I read that as advocating going to a conference room to yell into your skype microphone.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      Article describes author going into a conference room for quiet & isolation (also notes people coming in to ask if that's why he's in there).
      - brlewis 11y ago
        Yes, but this comment subthread is about rtpg's "Surely there's a conference room" reply to buserror, not about that part of the article.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Actually I meant the guy having his call in the conference room In the offices where I'm at now though, conference rooms have become the quiet spaces though. Life imitating HN comments I guess ;)
- buserror 11y ago
  I do embedded work; I have a workstation, and a board about 70x50cm long, cables, and an oscilloscope. So I cant /really/ shift that to a conference room to wait until whomever stop arguying with his mom... It's not just that tho, even people who move they ass to talk to someone else usualy /stand/ by that someone else, so instead of having a quiet head-to-head, it always become a 'broadcast'. I know that they could at least have signs saying 'quiet space' and all that, but that would fly in the face of the idea they have that it 'improves communication'. It's blatantly false, I have no friggin' clue what 80% of the people are doing in this office anyway...
notahacker 11y ago
The real reason certainly isn't cost when it involves one or two person pre-revenue businesses burning £200+ per month and an hour of daily commute in order to sit at a desk in a loft surrounded by other people rather than sitting at a desk in their nice quiet bedroom...
asgard1024 11y ago
> they think it gives them 'free' energy and they are being 'green', while ignoring completely the carbon footprint of making that panel in the first place It's a little OT, but do you have some real data to back this up? This argument came up a lot in discussions about light bulbs and fluorescent lamps, but in reality cost of fluorescent lamp is around 1% of its lifetime energy consumption. I highly doubt that solar panels cost more energy to produce than 10% of their lifetime output, even in such poor conditions as England.
- corin_ 11y ago
  I don't have any knowledge about the efficiency etc. but one possibly relevant note is that sometimes there are government subsidies, so even if there was a situation where it wasn't environmentally better it could still be a financial win for the end user. (I know this scheme was or may still be available in Oxford, I don't know if it was UK-wide or could have been the local council, but I know it wasn't a private company offering the incentives.)
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    Actually, I have to correct myself - it looks like most estimates give PV panels EROEI somewhere above 6, which would mean about 15% of produced energy is needed for the production and maintenance of the panel itself. But even then it would probably be net gain. Subsidies etc. are a different matter, because then you're talking about competing with other sources and the strawman argument "it costs more energy to produce than it saves" doesn't work.
madeofpalk 11y ago
> one Italian guy who's yelling into his Skype microphone That's a problem. If he's in an open area, let alone an office where people are trying to work, he shouldn't do that. Solve them problem of 'him' and maybe open offices will be less distracting?
pjc50 11y ago
while that panel will /never/ repay itself with the energy it harvests. Go on, show your working.

bane 11y ago

This is basically it. There's a thing I've noticed, I like to call it the "inverted reason list". It's an upside-down ordered list of reasons to do something, delivered to a skeptical or hostile audience. The list is ordered such that reasons the audience will like are delivered first, as if they are the most important, and the reasons the audience will hate are delivered at the end, as a side-thought. "and oh....it turns out open offices will save us $5m a year in facilities costs." is usually delivered at the end, when nobody is paying attention anymore, because it was preceded by "free snacks at every 25th cube!" and "will allow you to configure seating to keep your team near you" For work that requires lots of talking (or not lots of deep thinking), they work "ok", but for knowledge work, they're basically the worst idea ever conceived outside of sending all your coders to rock concerts all work day and wondering why nothing is getting done. Where I work, most people get or split offices, but we can work in a few other places, including an open work area. Most people hate working there because it will inevitably have somebody on speaker phone having an argument with their health insurance over an unpaid bill, and that conversation will go on for 2 or 3 weeks solid. Appeals to management have basically been ignored, and now we're getting ready to move to a new facility that's all open space.

rtpg 11y ago

But couldn't that be solved through office culture? Simply telling people "skype calls happen somewhere else"? Though obviously it would take a lot of work to get everyone to agree that that is the "best" culture. Especially for people who talk for a living (customer service, sales) Surely you have an empty conference room somewhere

rayiner 11y ago
Isn't that ironic? Advocating going to a conference room so you can be alone and concentrate?
- brlewis 11y ago
  I read that as advocating going to a conference room to yell into your skype microphone.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Article describes author going into a conference room for quiet & isolation (also notes people coming in to ask if that's why he's in there).
    - brlewis 11y ago
      Yes, but this comment subthread is about rtpg's "Surely there's a conference room" reply to buserror, not about that part of the article.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Actually I meant the guy having his call in the conference room In the offices where I'm at now though, conference rooms have become the quiet spaces though. Life imitating HN comments I guess ;)
buserror 11y ago
I do embedded work; I have a workstation, and a board about 70x50cm long, cables, and an oscilloscope. So I cant /really/ shift that to a conference room to wait until whomever stop arguying with his mom... It's not just that tho, even people who move they ass to talk to someone else usualy /stand/ by that someone else, so instead of having a quiet head-to-head, it always become a 'broadcast'. I know that they could at least have signs saying 'quiet space' and all that, but that would fly in the face of the idea they have that it 'improves communication'. It's blatantly false, I have no friggin' clue what 80% of the people are doing in this office anyway...

notahacker 11y ago

The real reason certainly isn't cost when it involves one or two person pre-revenue businesses burning £200+ per month and an hour of daily commute in order to sit at a desk in a loft surrounded by other people rather than sitting at a desk in their nice quiet bedroom...

asgard1024 11y ago

> they think it gives them 'free' energy and they are being 'green', while ignoring completely the carbon footprint of making that panel in the first place It's a little OT, but do you have some real data to back this up? This argument came up a lot in discussions about light bulbs and fluorescent lamps, but in reality cost of fluorescent lamp is around 1% of its lifetime energy consumption. I highly doubt that solar panels cost more energy to produce than 10% of their lifetime output, even in such poor conditions as England.

corin_ 11y ago
I don't have any knowledge about the efficiency etc. but one possibly relevant note is that sometimes there are government subsidies, so even if there was a situation where it wasn't environmentally better it could still be a financial win for the end user. (I know this scheme was or may still be available in Oxford, I don't know if it was UK-wide or could have been the local council, but I know it wasn't a private company offering the incentives.)
- asgard1024 11y ago
  Actually, I have to correct myself - it looks like most estimates give PV panels EROEI somewhere above 6, which would mean about 15% of produced energy is needed for the production and maintenance of the panel itself. But even then it would probably be net gain. Subsidies etc. are a different matter, because then you're talking about competing with other sources and the strawman argument "it costs more energy to produce than it saves" doesn't work.

madeofpalk 11y ago

> one Italian guy who's yelling into his Skype microphone That's a problem. If he's in an open area, let alone an office where people are trying to work, he shouldn't do that. Solve them problem of 'him' and maybe open offices will be less distracting?

pjc50 11y ago

while that panel will /never/ repay itself with the energy it harvests. Go on, show your working.