Doing a little background research it seems they were comparing open floor plans to cubicles. They didn't even consider the obvious alternatives to the panopticon, such as remote work or the tried-and-true office with a door.
It was a link to a summary of the actual study. With that said I went and skimmed the original study and that looked just as bad. Here's the original study.
http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu/file_uploads/offices1_12382569...
Forget the fact that they didn't have the raw data. They don't clearly explain on what basis they reach their conclusions.
How are they measuring the 'success' of an open floor plan? For that matter, how can you even measure the 'success' of an open floor plan versus a close floor plan?
It's like saying a study that compared air travel to high speed rail is comically bad because it didn't even consider teleportation. (Extreme hyperbole, but I think it conveys my point.)
Its like saying light bulbs are comically bad because the sun is there for free. :)
I still have a hard time imagining that building individual offices, with the additional wiring, AC/heat, individual lighting etc. would be even close to a cubicle build out. Haven't built a space myself though and don't have hard data, so guess I'll take your word for it.
Now, you can re-use and re-configure cubicles, so that's often used as excuse to buy them. But moving them around is also expensive - rewiring, mechanical work, they're fragile to begin with.
So I call cubicles a dead loss to the bottom line. That's been my experience.