The most common justification I hear about the open floor plan is that it "encourages collaboration".
In my experience, the sort of people who talk about open floor plans for "collaboration" tend to be incompetent managers. Instead of managing, leading, and making decisions, they believe that by manipulating some imaginary rate of collaboration, workers will "collaborate" their way to generating value and wealth. It's a managerial form of cargo cult behavior.
Personally, my best years have been in a shared office with someone whose presence I genuinely enjoyed. It was less about collaboration and more about keeping the mood up throughout the inevitable daily slog through painful work that, truthfully, nobody wants to do.
I hesitate to say this, but I'm a big fan of cubicles... But not the cubicles you're probably thinking of...
I'm a fan of 4-8 person teams attacking problems together and I've found flexible cubicle arrangements to be very effective. At one company, we could change around our cubes (albeit not terribly frequently) and it was great to be able to create a multi-person office with a conference table for your team (e.g. PM, designer, developers). We had tight collaboration and our own private space without being distracted by the larger company. Of course, this style of organization also affect project management, etc, but it was quite effective.
I'm reading PeopleWare right now which deals with this issue at length and their conclusion is quite similar to yours.
In retrospect it's as simple as it's obvious: people should be allowed to setup their offices in a way that works for them.
Interestingly enough this all comes from the original patterns book, the one which concerned itself with actual architecture.
It essentially states that people should create their own space and that structure and order should only be imposed through adherence to shared general principles.
Many of these principles seem so simple and obvious yet are so often forgotten in practice, such as that the wall should be far away enough to give your eyes a chance to relax.
Another one was that the sounds you heard had to be similar to that of your own, which seems strikingly true in my own experience.
I personally dislike open office spaces, mainly because people always come up to me, even with headphones on, asking me stuff or just wanting my attention. My productivity soars when I'm isolated in an office or room with a door.
offices are for professionals and academia, cubicles are for technical staff and open [factory] floor is for blue collars and low level clerical (i.e. easily replaceable commodity). That basically reflects the evolution of status of programmers in the society during the last 60 years.
So does anyone have the answer? Low cubes? High cubes? Share cubes? Shared offices? Individual offices? Why so little experimentation and innovation in the tech world on what is perhaps the most important aspect of the company?
Does Fog Creek still give developers individual offices? Microsoft? Joel Spolsky wrote about an office design where the walls were slanted and interior windows were present so each office had windows on 3 sides (but you couldn't really see each other). http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BionicOffice.html
I'm also a fan of flexible furniture that can be moved around easily but have never really seen it used effectively. And I'd like to see better incorporation of stand-up positioning (I'm convinced sales people are more effective when standing; feels more powerful).
Surely the open plan is not the answer but who's searching these days? Do any YC (or equivalent) startups have individual offices?
Another thing that people like about the open floor plan is that it "looks good" and has the "startup feel".
I think this is the simplest explanation for the "inexplicable" trend. Companies see other young, hip, growing companies/startups do it, so they feel that they should do the same thing if they want to be a young, hip, growing startup.
Spolsky said many years ago that programmers need private offices to collaborate and be productive. When I started Parse.ly in 2009, we couldn't afford them, but our team was already split geographically, so we just built a fully distributed team, instead. Home offices can make for great private offices, home Internet is fast, and commutes suck. I describe fully distributed teams in this blog post: http://bit.ly/distributed-teams
Now, we have over 20 employees, 13 of them spread throughout the US and Canada (all programmers). I actually just gave a presentation to new employees based here, "Parse.ly's Distributed Team: Open Source meets Open Plan": http://pixelmonkey.org/pub/distributed-teams -- it discusses some of the pro's and con's of our setup.
I think there's something more to the open floor plan beyond collaboration and cost saving. It goes back to a post I saw here a few months ago about building unity [1] with the team. I don't know the answer, but I think there is something to be gained by fostering the feeling of "We're all in this together".
I'm a software engineer who has only worked in open plan offices, so maybe I don't know the joy of working in an office, but there is definitely a different feel from the one office where the managers/partners had their own offices and everyone else was open plan vs everyone in the same couple rows of desks.
This is an interesting rant on open offices. The 'inexplicable' part is rationalized as a cost savings thing.
Open offices are different. They have been very common in Europe for years. I remember being astonished visiting offices in Switzerland back in the 90's with folks sitting at desks just out in the open. And while I found it abhorrent (I had an office back at HQ, with a window no less), these people did seem to get things done.
It is possible Tech companies in the US are "catching up" to the rest of the world with regard to this stuff. I thought quad cubes at Google were a bit much, (and being that close to three other people can be uncomfortable) but no one was arguing that Google was unproductive or 'bad.'
Headphones are great for shutting out the noise if you want that.
Well, as a developer I need to be able to do two things: I need to be able to think, and I need to be able to get information.
Unfortunately, those two are at war with each other. If I can easily and quickly get information from a co-worker, then they can also get it from me. But that easy interruption, which minimizes the disruption to my co-worker's work, also breaks my train of thought.
The private office/cube/open office choice is a tradeoff, balancing communication with deep concentration. What the proper answer is may depend on your team, your project, and maybe even the phase of the moon. However, it does not depend on which book your manager read most recently.
In the late 90s, my downtown SF software employer proposed cubicles for the developers in the new office nearby. The team revolted, with good reason, and offices were installed in the new space.
The problem is the absolute lack of natural light you encounter inside of offices with high cubicle walls. And when you line the perimeter of the floor with offices, those left inside without offices suffer in darkness. And while programmers, who require more focus and may be more introverted, generally like privacy and walls, other people absolutely despise them and their moods can suffer greatly in these environments. I don't know what the solution is.
Software developers are much more expensive than the office space they occupy. For the price of a developer, say $100K a year ($8333 per month), you can get rent an entire luxury apartment in NYC. A hundred square feet of space in an office building (the size of a single-person office) is a tiny fraction of that.
How about study area's in libraries? Big open spaces with maybe some nooks and crannies but immense amount of focus and concentration. The difference is the implied quiet culture. (i.e ssshhh this is a library.)
My suggestion: You can keep the open space but you need to enforce either a quiet area for focus or carve out a specified area for loud and open collaboration.
was_hellbanned|12 years ago
In my experience, the sort of people who talk about open floor plans for "collaboration" tend to be incompetent managers. Instead of managing, leading, and making decisions, they believe that by manipulating some imaginary rate of collaboration, workers will "collaborate" their way to generating value and wealth. It's a managerial form of cargo cult behavior.
Personally, my best years have been in a shared office with someone whose presence I genuinely enjoyed. It was less about collaboration and more about keeping the mood up throughout the inevitable daily slog through painful work that, truthfully, nobody wants to do.
CoffeeDregs|12 years ago
I'm a fan of 4-8 person teams attacking problems together and I've found flexible cubicle arrangements to be very effective. At one company, we could change around our cubes (albeit not terribly frequently) and it was great to be able to create a multi-person office with a conference table for your team (e.g. PM, designer, developers). We had tight collaboration and our own private space without being distracted by the larger company. Of course, this style of organization also affect project management, etc, but it was quite effective.
mtrimpe|12 years ago
In retrospect it's as simple as it's obvious: people should be allowed to setup their offices in a way that works for them.
Interestingly enough this all comes from the original patterns book, the one which concerned itself with actual architecture.
It essentially states that people should create their own space and that structure and order should only be imposed through adherence to shared general principles.
Many of these principles seem so simple and obvious yet are so often forgotten in practice, such as that the wall should be far away enough to give your eyes a chance to relax.
Another one was that the sounds you heard had to be similar to that of your own, which seems strikingly true in my own experience.
brianbreslin|12 years ago
trhway|12 years ago
mattgreenrocks|12 years ago
This also explains why programmers get horrible treatment, equity-wise.
Executor|12 years ago
pbreit|12 years ago
Does Fog Creek still give developers individual offices? Microsoft? Joel Spolsky wrote about an office design where the walls were slanted and interior windows were present so each office had windows on 3 sides (but you couldn't really see each other). http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BionicOffice.html
I'm also a fan of flexible furniture that can be moved around easily but have never really seen it used effectively. And I'd like to see better incorporation of stand-up positioning (I'm convinced sales people are more effective when standing; feels more powerful).
Surely the open plan is not the answer but who's searching these days? Do any YC (or equivalent) startups have individual offices?
brandonbloom|12 years ago
Microsoft: Depends on the team, but mostly no.
brown9-2|12 years ago
I think this is the simplest explanation for the "inexplicable" trend. Companies see other young, hip, growing companies/startups do it, so they feel that they should do the same thing if they want to be a young, hip, growing startup.
pixelmonkey|12 years ago
Now, we have over 20 employees, 13 of them spread throughout the US and Canada (all programmers). I actually just gave a presentation to new employees based here, "Parse.ly's Distributed Team: Open Source meets Open Plan": http://pixelmonkey.org/pub/distributed-teams -- it discusses some of the pro's and con's of our setup.
Stwerner|12 years ago
I'm a software engineer who has only worked in open plan offices, so maybe I don't know the joy of working in an office, but there is definitely a different feel from the one office where the managers/partners had their own offices and everyone else was open plan vs everyone in the same couple rows of desks.
[1] http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/03/how-winners-win-john-boyd-...
ChuckMcM|12 years ago
Open offices are different. They have been very common in Europe for years. I remember being astonished visiting offices in Switzerland back in the 90's with folks sitting at desks just out in the open. And while I found it abhorrent (I had an office back at HQ, with a window no less), these people did seem to get things done.
It is possible Tech companies in the US are "catching up" to the rest of the world with regard to this stuff. I thought quad cubes at Google were a bit much, (and being that close to three other people can be uncomfortable) but no one was arguing that Google was unproductive or 'bad.'
Headphones are great for shutting out the noise if you want that.
pbreit|12 years ago
cbaleanu|12 years ago
I think it has to do with culture. Socializing during office hours is encouraged as employees tend to be more productive if they are in a good mood.
Cubicles are universally perceived as bad and boring to be in, as you cannot socialize.
AnimalMuppet|12 years ago
Unfortunately, those two are at war with each other. If I can easily and quickly get information from a co-worker, then they can also get it from me. But that easy interruption, which minimizes the disruption to my co-worker's work, also breaks my train of thought.
The private office/cube/open office choice is a tradeoff, balancing communication with deep concentration. What the proper answer is may depend on your team, your project, and maybe even the phase of the moon. However, it does not depend on which book your manager read most recently.
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
mgirdley|12 years ago
donjigweed|12 years ago
cylinder|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
ExpiredLink|12 years ago
Office space is expensive, labor is cheap. That's the conclusion. It's the economy, stupid.
normloman|12 years ago
greenyoda|12 years ago
avelis|12 years ago
My suggestion: You can keep the open space but you need to enforce either a quiet area for focus or carve out a specified area for loud and open collaboration.