Ask HN: Why do we still use open floor plans? I read within a job description, "...open floor plans inspire a constant exchange of ideas, advice, and banter.". Is it just me, or do all of those things make you cringe when you're thinking about actually getting work done? |
In my experience, even operations and development teams are under this canopy. Only execs and legal have doors, and the only sanctuaries are conference spaces, which have time limits imposed.
On one hand, it is nice to "see daylight" as a member of an operations team. Not sequestered in a windowless NOC, but as things go 'serverless', so does our sanctum.
Headphones only do so much, whether on or off.
These are all generic grey looking ones, nothing fancy like tempered glass.
Anyway, I've only heard of companies typically ripping out their cubicles to switch to open flooxplan, or starting out on the cheap, line-em-up, see who fits your culture, ostracize the others.
Other factors:
* "everyone else does it"
* Open floor plans seem like a good idea when you first hear them; the downsides are not immediately obvious. Verbal reasoning, no matter how flawed, almost always wins.
* The decision makers tend to be blissfully unaware of the dynamics of knowledge work because their work is typically interrupt-driven. Thus, they don't see any problem putting 50 programmers in a cramped and echoey gymnasium.
* Even if the decision maker is fully aware, their boss might not agree to a higher-cost office plan. Actual dollars will almost always beat non-metrics like "compounded employee productivity" or "time and money not wasted due to mistakes caused by people operating in a distracting environment".
--Yes, in theory you could design an experiment, but that would delay the decision and probably require spending money. And the outcome would probably be misinterpreted: the open floor people will be louder and will appear to be working harder. (But are they actually more productive or are they just scrambling to fix all the bugs they created?)
The whole thing can be very distracting.
On the plus side, it's never lonely even when I am not talking to anyone. It's easy to see if people are available. It's easier to go chat to people about work.
That's a plus for the person who wants to chat. It's a massive negative (far outweighing the positive for the person who gets to chat right now instead of in an hour's time) for the person who was several stacks deep in mental context in chasing down some Heisenbug, or really involved in bashing out just the right code with a head full of flowing understanding. Especially when it's a chat that lasts thirty seconds.
At times internal coherence of e.g. a planning / architecture team is invaluable. And if such team is embedded in a larger space with related people around it - fantastic.
Most spaces however serve more than one goal. An externally focused organization will want loose coupling to the inside. The last you want to happen is all sales guy jumping on the most promising prospect.
Notice how the further up the hierarchy you go the larger and better appointed offices the managers have? They then hold their meetings in conference rooms, or better still, swanky restaurants and clubs.
And all that is based on the revenue generated by the cube farm slaves.
I work in an office with an open floor plan, and, most of the time, no one is even talking.
The amount of work you could do in an open floor plan office might also depend on the company culture.
In one environment I spent a number of years in, once work-at-home became more acceptable, almost universally, the most productive people -- by my prior and continuing observation -- pushed to add as much of it to their schedule as they could manage.
Even the real collaboration -- email and instant messaging, first. Phone calls where needed.
Some face-to-face meetings could be plenty productive, when properly defined and run. The far majority were not, however.
The best people hated open space. Those who loved it, you typically had to remind 5 times of everything. Or nag. Increasing your own burden, in the process.