Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

Maybe they do all those studies and decide that the hit in productivity is worth the cheaper open space? Maybe individual performance just doesn't matter that much? I'd bet that the bigger the company, the less it matters how effective individuals are and the more it matters how effective teams are.

As much as I love working from home or an office or whatever, team productivity is better when people who work together share physical space.

View on HN

I've worked for several big companies (though not Facebook, Google, Apple, or others in that class). None of them showed any interest in analyzing developer productivity, much less looking for ways to increase it. My gut instinct is that developer productivity is hard to measure, real estate costs are easy to measure, so you end up with 500 people in a noisy environment doing the work that 100 could do in a quiet environment.

I also suspect there's a status thing going on. People working on the floor are lower status than people with offices, and I suspect some execs find status signaling more desirable than productivity.

I think that hard to measure consequences vs easy to measure financial impacts are why so many companies go down the path of mediocrity one small change at a time. "If we make people jump through all of these hoops for software/hardware/whatever we save $X per year." HR, finance, corp IT and facility management in big companies rarely factor in employee happiness because you can't put that as a line item in the budget. Their priorities become aligned with their own interests.

HR is starting to wise up as evidenced by improving benefits packages and various industry publications. And while that's good that's probably a consequence of being held directly accountable for recruiting and retention which doesn't translate readily to other departments. There's still a dramatic disconnect between various departments and what benefits the company as a whole.

Exactly!

This isn't a problem of one office design or another. It's a problem of misaligned incentives between individual workers and the people making these decisions.

I don't think there's a solution for that.

As much as I love working from home or an office or whatever, team productivity is better when people who work together share physical space.

Define "team".

I fully believe that a co-located 5-9 person team in an open space can be a good thing.

I also fully believe that a co-located 20-30 person department composed of 4-6 teams, all in a single open space is a complete disaster.

And don't get me started on the travesty that is the new Facebook space.

To me, the perfect solution is neither individual offices nor open plans, but rather 5-9 person team spaces with floor-to-ceiling walls and a door, plus breakout rooms.

> To me, the perfect solution is neither individual offices nor open plans, but rather 5-9 person team spaces with floor-to-ceiling walls and a door, plus breakout rooms.

This can be a pretty good solution for a well-gelled 5-9 person team. But I don't buy into the mindset that this is always the natural unit of software development. Some problems need larger groups -- that probably don't fit the "gelled team" model as well -- while others are perfectly amenable to one or two people coding away behind closed doors. Why is there so much focus on "teams" at the moment?

>And don't get me started on the travesty that is the new Facebook space.

I have similar observations about their UI. Maybe a consequence of Conway's law, that the office plan is implicitily reflected in the software?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com