Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwfunk | Hacker News Reader

Open office plans seem really polarizing on HN, but it surprises me how often people defend them here (or even evangelize them). For software development, it seems like something that has no upside at all (aside from saving money on office space), and tons of downsides.

For the people who do prefer them (and also spend most of their time writing code), I would be curious to know the following:

(1) How many years have you spent, total, working as a developer in an office environment every day?

(2) What percentage of those years were in open office layouts vs. sharing an office vs. having a private office?

(3) How many times a day, on average, do you interrupt other people with questions, vs. other people interrupting you?

I bring this up because I just really truly don't get the occasional open office boosterism here. My current theory is that most of it comes from people who are still in the honeymoon phase of their career (like, the first few years after college when everything about the workplace still has some novelty to it).

I say this because it seems like many/most of the people I talk to in person who like the open office idea have either literally never had a private office, or are relatively fresh out of college and get a job at Google (or a startup, or wherever), and they're still so excited about everything that even the things that are hassles (like open office plans?) seem like they're brimming with novelty.

Alternately, a lot of the people I talk to who like open offices tend to be those that are constantly pinging the people around them for help, but people rarely or never ping them for help. The only people I've known at my current company who want open offices (or even officemates) are these kinds of people. They don't even realize that they have an 'interruption deficit' (for lack of a better term) within their team, they just like the idea of everyone being more readily available to them and they don't pay the price for it since they rarely get interrupted themselves.

View on HN

That's an interesting point. It reminds me of something Joel Spolsky wrote:

Here's the simple algebra. Let's say (as the evidence seems to suggest) that if we interrupt a programmer, even for a minute, we're really blowing away 15 minutes of productivity. For this example, lets put two programmers, Jeff and Mutt, in open cubicles next to each other in a standard Dilbert veal-fattening farm. Mutt can't remember the name of the Unicode version of the strcpy function. He could look it up, which takes 30 seconds, or he could ask Jeff, which takes 15 seconds. Since he's sitting right next to Jeff, he asks Jeff. Jeff gets distracted and loses 15 minutes of productivity (to save Mutt 15 seconds)."

(From http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000068.html)

Conversely, I've been able to save days of employee time by hearing a conversation between two colleagues that had a faulty assumption on our infrastructure setup.

But does a plus that happens once or twice a year outweigh minuses that happen multiple times per day?

And would the plus have even been necessary if the environment were not highly distracting? The best way to fix a bug is to prevent it from happening.

There are also other solutions to this problem, such as encouraging discussions like this to take place on something like HipChat. Now all the discussions are archived and searchable and even the people that are home sick that day have the chance to overhear something important, not just the guy that happened to be walking by.

And while yes, some discussions will still take place outside of the chat rooms, if this is your default way of working then there should be enough discussion of anything critical that everything makes it's way to chat eventually.

Once everyone's comfortable working this way you can encourage a lot more working from home (or working from wherever in the world you want to be, if your employees aren't all married with kids yet), etc. And that will save you even more on office space.

This type of "chance encounter" is a common rebuttal but instead of planning your office layout on the hope of occasionally catching a mis-communication maybe it would be better to improve how things are communicated so these "faulty assumptions" don't happen (and/or are caught sooner...independent of luck/chance).

Does FogCreek still have the "Bionic Offices"? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BionicOffice.html

I thought the "light on two sides" was particularly clever.

One thing holding back enclosed offices in SF is the very high ceilings in many of the older buildings. would high walled cubes work?

The punchline:

> The monthly rent for our offices, when fully occupied, will run about $700 per employee.

That's $8,400 per year in Manhattan.

This appears to be their new office space: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/stack-exchange-office-tour...

And these are shots from their new Denver office: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stackexchange/7776308984/in/set... http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/join-us-for-our-openin...

tl;dr there is at least some open-plan stuff. Which, really, just makes the most sense; a healthy mix of options is hard to argue with.

I have had both and been working in software about 10 years. I don't know if I would say open offices are an unalloyed good, but I would say that people tend to focus on the negatives without honestly considering the drawbacks of the alternatives they'd prefer.

Further, the time when I did have my own office was when I got interrupted the most. My boss would come in all the time and talk to me about whatever, a lot of times not even work-related stuff. Now I work in a place where people will only ever try to interrupt you via Slack, and if you tell them you're busy they will go away. So I think there is a cultural aspect as well, if your company accepts people bothering you whenever, I don't honestly believe an office will put a stop to that.

My experience mirrors yours, I've yet to meet (IRL) someone who has actually experienced private (or at least semi-private two-to-an-office) offices who prefers open offices.

All of the boosters I've run into have only known open offices. Having said that, I'm sure someone will chime in here who has experienced both and prefers open offices, but I have to believe such people are in the vast minority based on my completely anecdotal data

Having done both (as I'm old enough to have started working when open offices were pretty rare), it is kind of ridiculous how much less productive (and less happy) I am in an open office and how difficult it is to find a workplace that isn't open office these days.

I've been happy with open plan offices when the seats are far enough apart. If you open someone's door you are certainly going to interrupt them, but looking at someone's face often lets you know if this is a good time to ask them a question or not. My favorite work environment (where I stayed for 1.5 years) was open plan. My least favorite work environment (2 years) was also open plan where people were packed in.

And that's the insidious rot in every open floor plan I've experienced. Once you've put everyone in an open space, step two is to keep packing them in tighter and tighter until they start quitting because that's the only way to continue improving shareholder value(tm).

Anecdotally, the managers always seem to manage to keep their private offices. Funny that...

Just to throw another data point at ya:

1) 9 years

2) 1 year in shared office with only boss, 4 years in shared office with 4 other people, 4 years in a fully open office

3) In person I never interrupt others, but I will IM others about 3 times a day. As far as folks interrupting me, I spend 25% of my time managing folks, so I expect (and get) lots of interruptions, but people know to IM me first. Headphones help as a signaling mechanism for this, as well as blocking out noise.

I loved my office that was just me and my boss as it was quiet and also had a great view. I also love my current open office because it's a great space and facilitates easy conversation, plus my standing desk is next to a window. It's no honeymoon period, been a developer for 9 years and in the workforce for 15 years.

Also, I absolutely hated the shared office with 4 people. Just absolutely terrible to be in cubicles in a small space with none of the benefits of a private office or open office. And people constantly opening the door to go in and out until we finally everyone was just propping their doors open, so it was semi-open anyways.

Edit to note: I work for a great non-profit and it helps to be surrounded by people I love and who I know are working hard to make a positive change for the world. If I were working for a corporation I'm not sure if I would feel the same about an open office plan or not.

I've worked in software development post-college for 7 years. The first 3 I had my own office and for the last 4 I've been in an open space.

I really think this is a matter of personal taste to a large degree, but for my part I prefer the ability to ask questions readily and listen in on what my colleagues are working on. I think the point you're trying to make about an 'interruption deficit' is off the mark. Someone new to a team is going to ask many more questions than a veteran and it's certainly damaging to their ability to learn if asking questions is a chore or unwelcome socially. Email and messaging apps are alternatives of course, and are often the right choice when the question doesn't merit interruption. But sometimes a quick answer is needed to progress at all and being able to turn around and say something makes things faster.

In open office spaces people are still able to work from a laptop somewhere else, put on headphones, or work from home. And having your own office doesn't mean you aren't interrupted. People would tend to come by for long periods of time when I had an office, seemingly because they were starved of social interaction.

A caveat to all this is that for a brief period I was in an overly crowded open office arrangement and that was very much detrimental to my work.

if you actually read the papers they mention (and others) you will notice that people that defend it are often:

1) mislead by the initial sense of acomplishment and better communication.

it is like working in a war room. you get tons of stuff done, but it is crazy, stressful and you have lots of people working on a little thing that demands attention. your return for all those people is actually less, but you need a war room in some situations.

open office work the same way. you get a initial difficult thing done. but at the usual high cost of having lots of people working on it and ignoring/half-assing others.

2) people like micro-management.

there is no denying. open office plans and war rooms are perfect for the micro manager boss.

Also as a related but possibly incorrect observation - it seems that there is usually more table space per employee in cubicle layouts than in open-space. Whenever I see open-space office pictures there are long rows of tables and each worker has a laptop, maybe one monitor and small place for notes and stuff. And right next starts another similar workplace. In 4-person cubicle I (and all the the others in the office) have place for 2-3 or 4 monitors, laptop in dock, heaps of wires, analyzers, stacks of device parts, normal keyboards and mice, plants and other stuff and have free space left.

Polarizing is a good way to put it. For such a generally free thinking crowd, there's a lot of flat out hate for the open office here.

Personally, I've seen it work well (where I'm at now), and I've seen it work badly (two jobs ago). I've also seen the same in separate offices. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't really find that age or experience tends to matter that much as to where it works or doesn't. It's more about the work you're doing, and the company you're doing it for.

Some dev projects - those heavy on the back end especially, or requiring lots of sheer coding manpower over critical thinking, I think they definitely don't gain anything from the open office. The same could be said as well for the truly complex coding work out there - which, honestly, is less and less a reality.

If you're wiring up pages that do some middle tier logic or dealing with heavily interactive sites, which I think is what many of us do day to day, rather than the super intense, super difficult coding work that we all wish we did, I think the collaborative benefits can outweigh the risk of interruption.

If you're actually doing that big brain work, or really working on something that needs complete concentration, then yes, being able to zone in on it interruption free is definitely a good thing.

Like every other process, or tool, it depends on the context and the problem you're solving. And like most problems, you need the right person to use that tool or process. So does it work for every scenario, and every person? No, definitely not. The same can be said for a closed office as well.

Bottom line - right people, right place, for the right task at hand.

I'm apparently one of the few unashamed Open Office boosters here, so let me see if I can help.

I've worked as a developer for about 12+ years, then as a product/project manager for about 4 years. As a developer, I worked about half that time in soft-walled cubicles of various heights and another half in open office environments. I spent a year or so in a shared walled office. As a project guy, I spent about 3 years in an open office and 1 in a shared walled office (2people).

With my dev lead and project management hats on, open offices wins hands down. Whenever I want I can stand up and do a quick and dirty eyeball scan of the office and gauge who's deep in thought and shouldn't be disturbed, who maybe needs help with something, who's picking their nose on Facebook. Project goals, milestones, etc. can be on prominent display on the walls, so everyone can easily reference them--no more "oh, I didn't know we were releasing next Monday" excuses. Whiteboards all over the place so people can get up and do a quick informal collaboration, then visually reference it later from their desks. Everyone sees everyone all day, bringing an extra bit of team unity, nobody gets to hidey-hole in their office, pretending to not be part of a team. Daily stand-up meeting is quick to set up and painless, it takes a minute for everyone to just get up and walk over to the scrum corner, as opposed to having to lose 10 minutes every time waiting for everyone to decide to come out of their hiding holes. If I do have a quick question, I can tell if they're in the middle of something concentrating by just glancing over their way rather than having to knock on their office door (guaranteeing that I disturb them).

With my developer hat on, it's a bit of a toss up. I can appreciate the benefit of having a quiet, closed-in space to go deep on a problem. And open offices, while they can be quiet if you set basic etiquette rules, will never match the volume level in closed offices. But, in an open office, there's zero friction if someone needs to come chat about the code, collaborate, bounce ideas off me, and vice versa. I've never been offended when someone stopped by to discuss a problem they're having, or ask to review their approach or code. Sure, it gets you out of "the zone" a bit, but you just get back into it. The whole business about having to waste an hour to get back into the zone after an interruption is, frankly, total BS. One thing I'll say though, is the cubicles are the worst of both worlds: You have the noise level of an open office combined with the high-friction human interaction, collaboration that's limited to online tools, and hidey-hole mentality. I'd take either option over a cubicle any day.

I think my ideal office environment is open offices for everyone, but with small private workrooms here and there that people can reserve in 2hr blocks or so, where they can go away into if they really need that occasional alone time to get the job done.

> Whenever I want I can stand up and do a quick and dirty eyeball scan of the office and gauge who's deep in thought and shouldn't be disturbed, who maybe needs help with something, who's picking their nose on Facebook. Project goals, milestones, etc. can be on prominent display on the walls, so everyone can easily reference them--no more "oh, I didn't know we were releasing next Monday" excuses.

I worked in an office like this onc- oh, no, what you're describing sounds more like 5th period English than an office. but seriously, it sounds like you're missing a lot of trust in the ability and autonomy of your reports. I feel bad for your reports, it sounds like you either need to let the axe swing and hire adults or learn to trust and delegate.

There are a couple of things in what you said that raise some pretty big flags for me:

nobody gets to hidey-hole in their office, pretending to not be part of a team.

Seriously? That's what you think people are doing in their office: hiding from the team? I love being part of a good team. I love white-boarding broad design. I love sitting down and hammering out the nitty-gritty details. I even like pair programming and working one-on-one. But I am a classic introvert in that being around people is physically draining. I enjoy company and I'm good company, but it wears me out. Putting me in the same room with 5 other guys for 8 hours a day is a good way to get me burned out and exhausted with your project.

The whole business about having to waste an hour to get back into the zone after an interruption is, frankly, total BS.

This makes me seriously question the kind of work you've been doing. An hour may be on the long side, but there are lots of things I've worked on where an interruption will easily cost 15-30 minutes and have a much bigger impact on my willpower and focus. This is compounded by the fact that I'm mentally exhausted from constantly being in a room full of people.

Tracking a bug down through three layers of application, framework, and security code, for example. Writing that crypto implementation that has to be right the first time or customers get owned is another. Studying that new framework that you want the team to learn because it's the new shiny is another.

where they can go away into if they really need that occasional alone time

Look, I get that you're the boss and you get to tell me what to do. I want the team to succeed, so I'm not going to cause problems; I'll adapt to whatever you've decided we're going to do. But if you really want me at peak productivity you need to understand that alone time is my default mode, not something I need occasionally. I know I'm not the only one like this.

I think I would generally agree with what you said here.

I'm curious if you've succeeded in finding an office environment that would let you work that way ?

Unless you're working from home most of the time, it seems like "the management" would generally not be too keen to this.

No, I haven't. It's a big part of why I have changed jobs frequently over the last couple of years. It continues to be a source of frustration.

Looking back on my comment I was more harsh than I intended and a lot of that is because I am so frustrated with the current standard working environment. If I didn't have a family to take care of I would be extremely tempted to leave software as a profession entirely because of it.

When I was hired at my current job we had full-height cubes which are still not ideal, but workable. But now I've been shuffled into a new team working back in an open plan office. Many days after work I just want to go live in a cave and be left alone. It's not normal for me to be so socially drained and it's not a healthy dynamic for my family. I'm trying on the side to get my own company off the ground so that I can work the way I want to. We'll see.

I didn't take any offense. As someone else upthread put it, the open-vs-cubicle-vs-office debate is full of opinion and personal preference. I was simply explaining mine, as was requested.

I'm glad you didn't take it personally, it wasn't meant to be personal. But in hindsight I feel like I used you as a stand-in for the objects of my frustration. That's not really fair to you. I'm sorry for that.

Thank you for your comment, it provides perspective other than my own which is refreshing and valuable.

I think one of the OPs points touches on this directly though. What is the ratio of questions asked to answers provided, or to put it another way, how many questions are you asking vs how many people come to you for help with their own question? I humbly submit that perhaps you are asking more questions than you are answering - and there's nothing wrong with that, but IMO it does explain a bit why we don't see eye to eye about this. Have you thought about asking one of your subordinates about their perspective on this?

With respect, I disagree about the cost of context switching being BS. I think it heavily depends on the complexity/sensitivity of the task being interrupted, but for any non-trivial task there is almost always a non-trivial cost as well.

> I've never been offended when someone stopped by to discuss a problem they're having...

I just wanted to clarify, I think it would be rather unreasonable to actually feel offended because someone asked your help or advice. I never feel offended in those situations. I do sometimes feel a bit frustrated or aggravated, but it's always about the fact that I was interrupted and never towards the colleague asking for help, and I take extra care to make sure that this frustration or aggravation never shines through to the person I'm helping because that would discourage them from asking for help and I would rather they asked for help than make an incorrect assumption (for example).

Regarding "interruption deficit", or open-plans being important only to those who ask a lot of questions, I think their experiences _do_ matter. I would guess that these people are mostly junior developers, project managers, or simply people (extraverts?) who prefer social interaction as a part of their work.

Their opinions matter too. Junior developers will probably suffer without easy access to those around them (yes, it's annoying for the senior devs, but that's part of the job). PM's, similarly, need to be effective; in a well-run company, they're there to help and if open-offices are important to that, well, there you go.

I'm a fan of slack etc, but I'm also an extravert. If I'm not talking to others as a part of my job, I'm going to be miserable and leave. I don't think I'm the only one.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, it is important that the job is fulfiling for both introverts and extroverts and that's a very difficult balance to strike.

It's important to point out though that if you make asking questions too easy for new employees, they can end up leaning on that as a crutch instead of developing the troubleshooting skills necessary to solve problems independently.

I've been on both sides of this fence. I've been that new colleague hunting for info that isn't clearly documented, and I've also been the senior colleague who was the go-to person whenever a problem came up that didn't have an immediately-clear answer. I was lucky in that shortly after I started my only senior resigned leaving me with nobody to ask, which forced me to get good at that kind of troubleshooting.

It makes me wonder if new colleagues should be given a time period for when they are allowed to ask any question no matter how stupid. After that time, they can of course still ask questions but it's expected that they try to find an answer before asking. Along the same lines of pair-programming for colleagues who have been here less than 1 year.

Yes, this definitely makes sense.

Ratio changed as I grew up. As a fresh junior dev, you ask all the questions, as you get more and more senior, it inverts. I consider mentoring the junior folks and passing along whatever tribal knowledge that's not documented yet part of growing into a senior role and have no problem doing it. In fact, I'd rather someone ask me and break my concentration than not ask and go off re-implementing a linked list or something.

I have to say, what you describe as a manager seems to be more about the benefit to yourself and the way you 'control' your developers and less about trying to provide an environment that is efficient for your devs to deliver code. A lot of the benefits you think you get from an open plan office seem to be achievable through tools like slack.com . Open plan really really sucks as a developer.

The problem is that people hate adopting tools like Slack. They see it as just another tool they have to look at, and they totally discount that the communication is happening otherwise(either in person or another tool). It's not necessarily net new data that they now need to keep abreast of if you are, for example, replacing most email with it.

  After 22 years in software development, I have to say I am tired of all the new tools that supposedly solve all the world problems only to be abandoned in the next quarter.
  There is nothing wrong to talk to somebody when you want to tell them something. A lot of times it's more efficient then email, IMs or other more fancier tools.

"There is nothing wrong to talk to somebody when you want to tell them something. A lot of times it's more efficient then email, IMs or other more fancier tools."

For you maybe, for them no. That's not to say you should not talk to them, but your interruption of their workflow has a cost you may not perceive.

> The whole business about having to waste an hour to get back into the zone after an interruption is, frankly, total BS.

there's your opinion and then there's science which actually goes out and sees how the real world works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interruption_science)

I think open office is OK with very self restrained employees.

I was in a pretty big company with super huge open floors, but globally everyone was quite, you would easily prefer to IM a person 10m away than to try to talk directly. Projects would have group IM sessions and it was the polite way to ask or share information.

If some difficult point arises, there was a meeting space at 10 or 20 meters away, or there's the coffee corner otherwise.

When discussion that atmosphere with people working in other fields, retail for instance, they would find it unhuman and creepy, but I think it really strikes the right balance. I moved to another company more 'startup' like in the athmosphere, with people cracking jokes Here and there, and it's just pure hell from a work POV.

Yes, it is essential to work out etiquette and you don't want to mash people together unless they're actively working on the same project. Don't put Chatty Cathy from Purchasing adjacent to the guys trying to design and build the product.

I'm a developer, and to be brutally honest, I tend to procrastinate when left to my own devices. It's much harder to do that in an open office, and I feel much more productive in one.

> My current theory is that most of it comes from people who are still in the honeymoon phase of their career (like, the first few years after college when everything about the workplace still has some novelty to it).

Or are younger people able to handle more distractions? I don't mean that in the sense of "those kids these days", but as a more general developmental thing.

In college I remember doing homework while watching TV with the sound off so I could listen to music and chat with friends on the computer. Over the last few years at work it seems much more difficult to refocus after distractions from coworkers or text messages from friends and family. Has anyone else noticed this? The reason I ask is it's difficult to tell if this is an aging brain issue, or a side-effect of the projects being so much bigger and more complex than anything in highschool, college, and even early-career.

I don't know because I'm old enough that when I was fresh out of college there were no smart phones, and the only people on chat were tech nerds and college students, so the background distraction was just much much lower.

But what I will say is that distraction is bad for everyone, and being objective about ones performance is very difficult. A lot of people claim to be good at multi-tasking because that is what a lot of work environments demand, and so people learn to cope, but on the other side of the coin, many of these supposed multi-taskers have never sat down and thought deeply with enough focus to really solve a difficult problem the right away.

Software development is one field where the rigor forces you to learn this or eventually be exposed as incompetent, but I believe it is useful in any professional work that involves solving problems. Great solutions do not come from raw intelligence, they come from intelligence applied over time. If you can't focus and construct a persistent mental model then you might have a 200 IQ but still not be able to design a good system.

  I work as a software engineer for the last 22 years. ~4 of them as engineer manager, the rest as an individual contributor. 
  I hate offices. I worked in Microsoft in an office and it was hell. I was alone. It was not a team. It was me. It was sometimes better to email somebody then walk around to talk to them.
  I love open office plans. Yes, it's disruptive. But if I want to tell somebody something, I lift my head and talk. Everybody can hear what is going on and they can tune in if they are interested. For people that have distraction problems, usually headphones work quite well.
  Of course, I assume that people talk quietly and not scream their head off.
  BTW, I am usually the one that give advice and information instead the other way around.

I'll share my answers as well. Durations are rounded to the nearest month and may not add up to 100% because of rounding; also, most of my jobs have some combination of situations, since I tend to move around a lot internally.

1.) I've been a developer (in some context, this also includes "startup founder", "tech lead", and about a year total of internships) for about 10.5 years.

2.) Private office for 1 year total (across 2 companies). Shared office for 1 year (2 companies). Worked from home for a total of 2.2 years (2 companies). Private cube for 1.25 years (3 companies). Shared cube for 1.5 years. Open-floorplan for 20 months (Google), and war-room (same team in a large, 5-10 person office) for 2.5 years.

3.) It's varied throughout my career. As a startup founder, I neither interrupt people nor get interrupted, since I'm working from home and am the only developer on the project. When I was a tech lead, I did literally nothing but get interrupted; incoming requests outnumbered outgoing by roughly 10:1. As an individual dev, typically I'd be interrupted about 2-3 times for every time I asked someone else a question (my preference is usually much more toward figuring out something for myself than asking questions...probably moreso than it should be).

I am mildly in favor of open-plan offices, and here's why: most of the interesting stuff is happening outside of your head. I'll grant that open-plan offices are a huge distraction, they pull you out of flow, and as a result, you will write a lot less code than you would in a private office. However, here's where I say something controversial: code is a liability, not an asset. The goal of a developer is to solve problems, and you will solve more problems if you know what the pressing problems are than if you just put your head down and code up what your boss tells you to. It really sucks to slave away at a masterpiece of technology for a year or two, and then find that nobody uses it because you weren't solving the right problem to begin with.

Here's another statistic: in those 10.5 years of experience, I've implemented 30 projects (as in, working code delivered to boss/cofounder/teammates/market). Of those, 10 were successes, where I define "success" as either "used by > 1 million people", "at least 6 internal teams use it", or "made money for employer". The successes included 2 shared offices, 3 warrooms, 2 shared cubes, 2 open floorplans, and 1 private cube. The failures included 5 private cubes, 2 private office, 2 shared office, 7 open floorplans, and 4 works from home. (Interestingly, this seems to reproduce what I've heard in the literature of "same team in an office" > "private office" > "unrelated teams in an open floorplan".)

I'm curious, do folks in favor of private offices consider a project to be successful when it is delivered according to spec to your boss? Or is it successful when it makes it to market and makes a profit for the company? If it's the former, that would explain the differing views right there: it's quite possible for private offices to help you efficiently produce the wrong product.

It's funny but I think both sides of this argument are equally valid.

Personally I think you need to interrupt coding frequently, for health and for cognitive freshness. When I've been tech lead, often the most heads-down devs produced the most problematic code if you didn't check in on them. My belief was along the lines of "if you don't throw away everything and start over at least once you're doing it wrong," with the idea being that coding too fast results in complex, un-elegant solutions. Finally, in a fast-paced environment, you simply have to check in with each other, and having to schedule meetings or calls just sucks. The team I'm in right now is not co-located and we're losing tons of productivity.

And yet. When I work at a remote location (not home but near-home, not at the main site), I get TONS more coding, research, writing, and shit work done. No comparison. The work I'm doing now is perhaps more amenable to sole-contributor stuff, but I recall in the faster-paced jobs this was also true.

It seems like flexibility is needed. Open-plan is great, but maybe rotating offices would be good, where people can spend a day in them cranking some stuff out, and then come up for air for the rest of the week.

For software development, it seems like something that has no upside at all (aside from saving money on office space), and tons of downsides.

Commercial real estate is about $3/SF (per month) in San Francisco (Class A) and $4/SF in Manhattan. Open plan offices save about 75-100 SF per employee (more, if you're looking to be sadistic and impractical, but at this point, the productivity loss is obvious.) So the employer is saving, at absolute most, $5000 per employee per year. It's not worth it.

That's basically what it is. The open-plan layout is reminiscent of college and the all-nighters in the computer lab. But work is not college. A bad grade on an assignment is much more fixable than getting fired. The stakes are higher, and that's why a certain brand of professionalism (or, more bluntly, divorcing oneself from behaviors that are acceptable for 18- to 21-year-olds) is necessary.

Well, private offices make nerf-gun battles harder. And you hear less juicy gossip. And you don't have an audience for self-important rants about Lena Dunham. It might get so "boring" (in the sense of a lack of distractions) that you might be tempted to actually work to pass the time.

Having individual offices is is a lot more complex then just more space.

Actually building these things is non trivial. It's not just walls, it's air con vents, electrics, etc. I also think you may be underestimating the extra space required to make an office not feel like a closet.

Then there is natural light. In a big open plan space light travels to the entire space. With offices you either need to build on the edge of the building and have a window, or make at least one wall out of glass (expensive). Even doing that you still can't just take a big room and turn it into partitioned offices.

The capital outlay for a company to fit out a space with individual offices is actually really high and it all comes in one big hit. I'm sure if it was a matter of just paying 5k per employee extra per year the story would be different, but that isn't really a reality.

>Well, private offices make nerf-gun battles harder. And you hear less juicy gossip. And you don't have an audience for self-important rants about Lena Dunham. It might get so "boring" (in the sense of a lack of distractions) that you might be tempted to actually work to pass the time.

Amazingly this is also an argument from working from home. I've been at two companies during a WFH transition and they act surprised at the increase in productivity. Often times it's this very reason, less babbling and nerf-gun fights and more actual work.

Of course this doesn't cover those who "work from home" by watching Netflix and jiggling the mouse on their laptop every ten minutes or so. I'm talking about the more responsible people.

"Of course this doesn't cover those who "work from home" by watching Netflix and jiggling the mouse on their laptop every ten minutes or so. I'm talking about the more responsible people."

It's probably still more productive because now they are not distracting anyone.

At a former job I worked from home where I had peace and quiet pretty much all day. I only really worked 4-5 hours in a day, but I was significantly (in the order-of-magnitude realm) more productive than my in-office teammates. On the occasion I'd go into the office for a few days my productivity level would similarly plummet, even though I was working for more hours each day. I can only attribute this to the incessant interruptions of the open-office plan.

I know it is just anecdote, but I'm the same way. I just don't have the flexibility to work from home regularly. With one company I previously worked for I took a sick day to stay home so I could actually finish an important project.

>So the employer is saving, at absolute most, $5000 per employee per year. It's not worth it.

And yet not only are employers embracing it but extending the model with hoteling and virtual desktops. A good friend of mine at Shell checks into his locker every morning and then goes and finds a random desk to work from for the day. I'll give you 10:1 the guy whose idea that was isn't sitting at a cube.

Rent is only the beginning of the costs. You need to build out the offices, which in a place like NYC means dealing with union BS and potentially carrying two rental costs if the market is tight. You're easily spending $100/sqft

You also run into tax and other accounting issues by making permanent improvements to the office vs. buying modular cubes and such. Portable equipment gets deducted over a few years... permanent improvements get depreciated over long periods of time (30+ years!)... So you get to pay taxes on profits that you didn't make.

Most companies don't have the cash flow to pay a 30% premium in a high tax state on expensive construction, so cubes are a no brainer.

This seems like an unfairly-condescending post to me. The last line primarily. I don't think that having an open office implies the stereotypical "nerf gun wars, billiards, and foosball" environment (or at least it doesn't at the company I'm working for). Nor does it mean that those who work in it are irresponsible, immature, or self-important. Certainly those conditions exist, but it's not fair to generalize it that far.

I have yet to work in an open floor plan that was without barking dogs, nerf guns, loud meetings, and the occasional R/C helicopter.

I work from home 75% now. When I'm in the office, I get next to nothing done.

Perhaps this is more of the norm in the Bay Area (I assume that's where you're from, from your other comment), but I've never seen anything as open as that (dogs at least). I don't think anyone would claim that a "bring your dog to work and let it roam around freely" sort of environment would be productive. I'm surprised they would allow that at all, seems like it could cause other problems as well.

I still don't think that sort of generalization is fair, though. I think a normal, sane office could be open, but without the ongoings that seem to be present in the environments you and the parent witnessed. Well, I can definitely vouch for that being the case in the office I work in.

I was interviewing at a company in Chicago with the open office plan, foosball table right next to the engineers, and people blasting the Indiana Jones theme over the speakers.

They said they had trouble finding senior people. If I had been more aggressive I would have told them "have you considered having an adults table?"

As someone who is in no way a senior developer, I can't imagine working in this sort of environment. Then again, I've been working exclusively in enterprise up to this point.

I guess I can't add an edit to my post, but ironically, a day later, a friend of mine posted on Twitter about having his dog at work. So maybe I am the one with the unusual office.

Dogs at work?!

It's rather obnoxious. I suppose some people are really, really, into pets. (Or more cynically, guys have a better pickup rate if they have a dog in public?) But it seems like a popular option these days to show how cool a work environment is.

At one SF shared workspace area, this guy always brought his dog in. Damn thing would go sniffing around and most people thought it was cute. I found it very annoying, especially when I had food. While I could tell him to piss off and keep his dog away, then I'd come off as the dick.

Google[1], Pinterest[2], et al let you bring dogs to work.

[1] http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/photos/10-companies-that-let-... [2] http://www.quora.com/What-San-Francisco-startups-allow-emplo...

Add Amazon to that list.

I see all of those things in my office for sure.

Nor does it mean that those who work in it are irresponsible, immature, or self-important.

Of course it doesn't. Most of them have no choice.

Saving money on office space is the main reason management goes for Open Plan. Note that in most companies more senior staff typically get their own office still.

One of the companies I worked at did the Nerf gun thing. They meant well, but man, there's nothing more annoying than being on a deadline but you can't focus because you're never quite certain when a dart is going to fly at your head or into your coffee. I know companies don't want to be seen as stodgy or unfun, but its probably not a great idea to supply people with things to actively annoy each other...

>Commercial real estate is about $3/SF (per month) in San Francisco (Class A) and $4/SF in Manhattan.

I think you're off by quite a bit with your price-per-square-foot estimates: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/10/01/manhattan-leasing-str...

That is from last year and the average price in Manhattan was about $60/sf.

Urban office leasing is almost universally quoted by yearly rates (for whatever reason), but your parent poster quoted by the month instead.

$60/sf/yr works out to $5/sf/month, not far from your parent poster's assertion.

$60/sf by the above poster's metric(monthly) would be insanity.

Do you have a team chatroom? Are you ever distracted by messages you receive in it?

For me the two are very similar. I work in an open plan office and enjoy being able to talk to my co-workers - often someone will pull their chair up to someone else's to pair program for a while, or just discuss the issue they're having.

If you don't want interruptions, you put headphones on. It works well.

Maybe it's because I've been working "alone" in the quiet for so long, but I can not force myself to not stop and listen when other people are talking. I can, however not switch windows/tabs over to the chat client until I'm ready.

Have you figured out "eye headphones" to remove the visual noise as well?

If you find something let me know. I literally want blinders to complement my QC-25s. It's the only way to get things done.

Check out the "Laptop Compubody Sock" by Becky Stern. http://www.instructables.com/id/Laptop-Compubody-Sock/

> If you don't want interruptions, you put headphones on. It works well.

It works well for some people. While you may be able to code perfectly well with music blasting in your ears (loud enough to drown out nearby conversations) that is not the case for everyone.

I wear headphones at work but the volume (at which I can actually concentrate on my work) is only sufficient to drown out/filter random background noises (typing/mouse-clicks, HVAC, people walking by, etc) - if there are people having a conversation a few feet away my productivity plummets.

I cannot use headphones to counter noise and distraction. If I use music, I pay attention to the music. White noise I feel like I'm in a science fiction movie. And regardless of how comfortable a particular headphone may be, something on my head is itself a distraction.

Headphones may be at best a distraction mitigation, but what they really are is evidence that your environment is crap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com