I think it's easy to severely underestimate the value of having people overhear conversations and interactions of others beyond their obvious scope of work. If you set things up so only explicitly opted-in collaborations occur, then those are the collaborations you will get: people who all agree they should work together on something. This is a subset of the types of interactions that I believe result in great teams. Many collaborations begin when one person overhears another person they had no idea was working on something relevant to them, or that they could give valuable input on.
As with anything, there is a balance, and I believe there is no silver bullet to designing good offices. But I question those who think there is, and that siloing humans into isolated offices (a fundamentally unnatural state) as the default is objectively the best option.
(And before citing the various studies showing the impact on productivity of doing this, I feel productivity is only one characteristic of what I personally consider to be a good measure of a healthy work environment.)
Offices do not mean having each person locked in their room never interacting with anyone else. They mean you can close the door and be able to focus on something.
In my experience you get a lot more interaction when people have private offices, or at least cubes. It's easy to walk into someone's office and have a discussion. Easier than let's go find a meeting room so we don't disturb everyone. It's also pretty easy to call other people in as needed and have an impromptu meeting without needing to book a room for that and without disturbing others. Not to mention other technologies like e-mail, messaging etc.
The most collaborative places I worked in are those where people had offices and the least collaborative ones have open plans. Anecdotal but there you have it.
Let's face it, open plan offices are about reducing cost and pretending to be collaborative. It's the "Agile" of offices and I don't mean it in a good way.
>It's easy to walk into someone's office and have a discussion.
Certainly less easy than joining in on a conversation you overhear while sitting at your desk.
What we have here is disgreement over the optimal 'activation energy' for social interactions that produces the best work. This parameter depends on all kinds of factors, e.g. the type of work and work culture. What we need is a workflow that optimizes this parameter for a given office.
IOW, somebody needs to come up with a cost function and run gradient descent on it.
It's a little out there, but I think VR workspaces will potentially provide such a method. Currently the iteration cost is too high. (For example it could involve rearranging desks, tearing down walls, buying equipment, etc.) VR opens the door to a malleable workspace that still comes close to pairty with face to face communications (it is not there today but most likely will be in a few generations.)
For large companies, I can imagine using new branch offices for a/b testing.
A while ago I read a comment here about a university that, instead of paving roads to a new campus, just had grass everywhere. A semester later they paved over all the parts where the grass died from all the foot traffic.
I wonder if something like that would be workable? Have easily reconfigurable panels and furniture, encourage the staff to arrange it however they like, wait six months, then standardize/remove pain points/make permanent?
>>It's easy to walk into someone's office and have a discussion.
>Certainly less easy than joining in on a conversation you overhear while sitting at your desk.
If you overhear a conversation and even understand what it is about you clearly aren't focused on your(!) work. So you are in an unproductive state. It's not your duty to think about other peoples problems. If they can't manage it without help they have to ask you (or everybody, in an broadcast) explicitly over an asynchronous communication channel.
There is also no question about whether disturbances are good or bad: They lower productivity and induce stress. This things were shown many times by different scientific studies. This point isn't for debate.
If you want productive cooperation, you have only to encourage people to ask when they are stuck, and also encourage people being as helpful as possible when they are actually asked something. I think that's the true magic formula.
I cannot speak for yakult, but be careful with generalizations like:
> If you overhear a conversation and even understand what it is about you clearly aren't focused on your(!) work. So you are in an unproductive state.
I find it extremely difficult to work alone in an office. When I was still agency-side, before we moved to open workspaces I would often go to coffee shops to work because I found it very difficult to focus unless there was a certain level of conversational white noise. Once we finally did make the move it was great to be able to jump into a conversation on a project I wasn't a direct stakeholder in just because I had something to add (or vice versa). There are any number of day to day things that aren't covered in stand-ups that simply pop up organically.
> There is also no question about whether disturbances are good or bad: They lower productivity and induce stress. This things were shown many times by different scientific studies. This point isn't for debate.
Of course there is a question and of course it's open for debate. We know this because we're not all robots - different people are different. Now, that being said, I absolutely agree that open offices aren't for everyone, which is why in my opinion the magic formula isn't to stick everyone alone in a room and say "talk more", but it's to offer a combination of both open spaces and solitary offices to fit the needs of the individual.
> I cannot speak for yakult, but be careful with generalizations like:
>> If you overhear a conversation and even understand what it is about you clearly aren't focused on your(!) work. So you are in an unproductive state.
That is not an generalization. Explanation follows:
> I would often go to coffee shops to work because I found it very difficult to focus unless there was a certain level of conversational white noise.
Listening to other people is distraction. When you listen and think about what somebody is talking you can't think about your task at the same time. That's the opposite of being focused.
I know there are people having problems to focus on something and need distraction every few minutes. But that's another problem. That people often even think they are productive when they think about several things at once and make jumps in their head from one thing to another, but they simply don't even know what it means to be focused (because they don't have that ability at all).
> it was great to be able to jump into a conversation on a project I wasn't a direct stakeholder in just because I had something to add
From a project management viewpoint that's not great. When somebody is assigned to a task he has to dedicate all the time he is paid for to that task. And not using this time to solve other peoples issues by chance. It also makes tracking the time which was spend for a task imprecise. When e.g. two people where assigned but actually three people where doing it the next time estimate can go wrong because the time someone just jumped in can't be tracked correctly (and on the contrary that time is missing on the other task).
There is a time you sit together and discuss how to make something and then there is the time you actually do it following the agreed plan. In the second phase you need to concentrate so you shouldn't get distracted. Distraction in the second phase is a killer to productivity. Thinking about other peoples problems is distraction.
> There are any number of day to day things that aren't covered in stand-ups that simply pop up organically.
That isn't a problem, that's normal. Send an email, use the chat channel or open a ticket... The small things that pop up can be discussed asynchronously or even later. When you can't do any further work without getting feedback the ahead of time planing was bad and you have to discuss things in more detail the next time. Simply use more time for discussing and planing so disruptions of the working time of others afterwards can be avoided.
>> There is also no question about whether disturbances are good or bad: They lower productivity and induce stress. This things were shown many times by different scientific studies. This point isn't for debate.
> Of course there is a question and of course it's open for debate. We know this because we're not all robots - different people are different.
That question is already answered by scientific studies.
People are indeed different and like I said there are even those who think they can do multitasking. But that's an illusion. The difference between people is only in the amount of drop of productivity. When you try to do several things at once you will have accomplished less at the end of the day. That's a proven fact.
> in my opinion the magic formula isn't to stick everyone alone in a room and say "talk more", but it's to offer a combination of both open spaces and solitary offices to fit the needs of the individual.
Of curse there must be space for both collaboration and focused work. You have to have both. So open offices alone are bad. Individual offices alone are bad, too. You shouldn't be in one of the areas all the time. When you discuss your teams next steps it's much simpler when sitting together. But when you work on the execution of the agreed plan, you have to have a quiet place on your own.
When you can't stay focused in solidity and without distraction you have to work on your ability to concentrate. Maybe it is even a medical condition like ADHD.
Reading through your comment I can't help but think "this is a junior person who has never actually worked in an office."
Offices are complex setups full of complex people, and to think that you can extrapolate your few experiences or a study to cover any office, ever, anywhere is hopelessly naïve.
"But when you work on the execution of the agreed plan, you have to have a quiet place on your own" <- This is simply not true for everyone, as much as you (for some reason) wish that it was. I'm similar to the person you replied to in that I work best in "busier" environments. (Also, just to cut you off at the pass, I don't have ADHD - what a very strange comment to make). It has nothing to do with multi-tasking, I just enjoy and am far more productive working amongst other people than I am working alone in an office. I don't need to "work on my ability to concentrate", as my technical directors can attest to, it's just who I am.
I think you would be well served by understanding that not everyone is like you, and that people have different needs and abilities. It will help as you progress in your career.
> Reading through your comment I can't help but think "this is a junior person who has never actually worked in an office."
Wrong assumption. Almost ten years in professional software development.
> I work best in "busier" environments.
Can you then explain the contradiction how being distracted by visuals, noise and human speech should help to concentrate?
> It has nothing to do with multi-tasking, I just enjoy and am far more productive working amongst other people than I am working alone in an office.
It has a lot to do with multi-tasking. Your brain uses some capacity to process all the distracting inputs. Even if you try not to get distracted by them. That's a subconscious process. Nobody can do anything about it. (Even when you sleep you brain processes inputs from the outside world!)
When you are in a distractive environment your brain loses processing power for the actual task. That's something that can be measured. (A simple test is to let people solve math exercises under time pressure in different environments)
I don't say that working only on your own is the most productive thing to do in every situation, it isn't. Discussing things is much easier when people come together. But when you have to be focused on only one task you have to be in a non distracting environment.
> When you are in a distractive environment your brain loses processing power for the actual task. That's something that can be measured. (A simple test is to let people solve math exercises under time pressure in different environments)
No. This (might) measure the impact of an environment on a specific individual solving math exercises under time pressure...nothing more. If you actually have 10 years of dev experience than you should very well know that this isn't what development is!
> But when you have to be focused on only one task you have to be in a non distracting environment.
I'm standing in the rain telling you it's wet outside and you're pointing to a weather report telling me it's sunny. Not every person is built to a factory spec - we're all individuals. I, and apparently other people in this thread like me, do not do our most proficient work in non distracting environments. It's really that simple : )
I'll ignore your armchair diagnosis that I may have ADHD and just say that it seems like we're largely in agreement on the efficacy of mixed spaced offices.
I think it's better to work on making people better collaborators, than to ruin productivity on the off chance someone will hear something important in a conversation not meant for them. For example, I'm working on using Slack more to cc people on questions I have or things I'm doing so they have a chance to help/stop me or at least be aware of what I"m doing.
If you want a flexible collaborative environment without it's horrible effects on productivity, you could build Apple like pods surrounding an open area. Those who want to work in open areas would work in the middle. Those who need privacy to concentrate can still leave their sliders open during times they are open to collaborate.
I don't believe that ambient information ruins productivity. At least for me, the problem is noise, not signal.
I've spent quite a while working in spaces where the space is devoted to a team. If people are having quiet, focused discussions about what we're all focused on, I rarely find that distracting. The thing that drives me bonkers is when people are having loud, emotional, or off-topic conversations. Then part of my brain wanders off to process it and the rest is compelled to follow.
I also think Slack is rarely a good solution to trying to avoid interruption. If I turn it off for a few hours of coding, I'm far too late to participate. And if I leave it on, there are distractions right there on my screen. There's no way to overhear the useful bits and let the rest go; it requires full visual attention to process. The workplaces where I've felt least effective are the ones with big IM cultures.
I've spent quite a while working in spaces where the space is devoted to a team. If people are having quiet, focused discussions about what we're all focused on, I rarely find that distracting. The thing that drives me bonkers is when people are having loud, emotional, or off-topic conversations. Then part of my brain wanders off to process it and the rest is compelled to follow.
While I'm not good at tuning out any kind of noise, I'd say I'm pretty much the opposite, in that an argument about football or (building) architecture is easier to work through than a "team" conversation that I'm reasonably sure isn't pertinent but contains enough relevant keywords to keep pinging me for attention. My point is that distraction is such a personal thing that the only way to mitigate it is to give individuals a fair bit of control over their environments.
Yes, IM can be a horrible distraction too. If you've got a question that needs some thought from everyone -- as opposed to chatter or ephemeral questions -- then truly asynchronous communication (yes, e-mail...) is probably a better bet.
Could the difference here be that you're in environment where team boundaries are poorly drawn? To me, a team is a group of people who are playing the same game, who win and lose together.
Often I see "team" mean to use something much hazier, like "group of people with same skills" (e.g., design team) or "group of people in the same office". But I mean it more like "basketball team" or "soccer team".
In that environment, there is no team conversation that isn't pertinent, because we're all working to the same goal, and we're all jointly responsible for the same outcome.
That isn't to say that team members shouldn't work to be respectful. E.g., a team conversation over by the whiteboard is easier to let pass by than one where people are standing right behind me. But if we're on the same team, their problems are (eventually) my problems. I'd rather know sooner than later.
100x yes, I think people are often conflating "background conversations" to all be the same thing. I feel bad for people who work in offices where people are so inconsiderate that they start yakking about their kid's baseball game behind some software engineer trying to get some shit done. Or where a topic becomes heated or emotional and they don't take it elsewhere. But rich, constructive conversations that are happening about the work but possibly tangential to the concrete task that that engineer is doing can be immensely valuable in so many ways.
You are right about Slack, but I find most people aren't immediately responding to it so I'm hoping they've turned off notifications and just check it like email most times. Or they use it's Do Not Disturb feature when they need to focus.
> I think it's better to work on making people better collaborators, than to ruin productivity on the off chance someone will hear something important in a conversation not meant for them.
I think this trivializes OP's point a bit. It's definitely a lot more than 'off chance', and make people better collaborators is far from easy. Not saying that you're wrong, but whatever 'building Apple-like pods' is, doesn't sound like this is an option available to many (especially small) offices.
Respect what people communicate about their needs.
Measure the results.
Don't prescribe.
And, in "our" field, presumably you are dealing with "professionals." Treat them as such. If they say they need a resource (including, peace and quiet to concentrate), provide it.
Finally, as others state and I agree, offices do not necessarily mean isolation. If your offices are really soundproofed, impromptu meetings are frictionless with regard to timing and space. Socializing can also take place without people constantly looking over their shoulders to see whether they're being noticed or surveyed.
Provide some common spaces --separated from the offices, so that their are no "losers" who are unwillingly stuck in the noisy offices adjacent.
And if people want to work in a shared space? If you have the room, provide that, too. Let them work in the common spaces, if they like.
Let them do what works for them. Monitor the output.
Lose the ego (speaking generally, not to the parent post nor anyone in particular, here). Open the eyes. (And ears, as it were.)
P.S. In my case, people were repeatedly pleased and sometimes astounded with my work. But I could never get past "the way we do things" and the separation from Management who kept to themselves the actual authority to make any changes that might vary from "the way we do things."
In retrospect, and if my life hadn't deal me a series of crippling blows, early on, I should have become a consultant. Better pay, and the built-in ability to walk away from bad environments. If you need to; sometimes, since you aren't part of the organization, they will just give you what you ask for. Not part of those internal politics.
> I think it's easy to severely underestimate the value of having people overhear conversations and interactions of others beyond their obvious scope of work.
I used to feel the same way, but after trying to balance focus and eavesdropping, I've come to the conclusion that it is too dependent on circumstances. Sometimes the conversations aren't happening in the right places at the right times.
I think this is an unrecognized business problem, probably an unrecognized managerial responsibility. Some developers handle it by cultivating office social relationships with people in various parts of the company, but that's a burden than you can't put on everyone. Not only does it not make sense, but some people will be averse to it or simply not good at it. Rather than put the burden on developers, a good manager should keep the pulse of the rest of the company and keep everyone connected and oriented.
Of course a manager can't do a perfect job, but they should do well enough that their engineers won't feel paranoid about not eavesdropping or gossiping enough.
> siloing humans into isolated offices (a fundamentally unnatural state)
I don't know that it's any more unnatural than asking people to complete demanding individual tasks while other people in their social group have conversations nearby. We're so wired to be social that having conversations nearby virtually compels multitasking, which we're not very good at, which is probably why historically people who have been able to afford the expense of quiet, private workspaces seem to prefer them. "A room of one's own" has become symbolic of the material and social conditions that enable difficult intellectual work.
> I think it's easy to severely underestimate the value of having people overhear conversations and interactions of others beyond their obvious scope of work.
But only if you are not doing any work at that moment.
If you are constantly expected to be able to 'overhear' conversations while coding, I don't see how you could get anything done.
The trick is to make it so people have control. That said, I take issue with the claim people often make that all coding requires complete sound and visual isolation from other humans.
In my experience there are large swaths of software engineering tasks that involve transforming code that are not negatively affected by ambient noise and conversation, and that are relatively easy to context switch in and out of. I realize this probably is heresy to some people but it is the reality I find for myself. That does not mean there are not also large categories of tasks that require dedicated focus and isolation, but I take issue with the claim that all coding needs to occur in a sound proof chamber.
I find myself (and I'm sure many others do) doing these types things in an office environment that often has some ambient conversational noise and do not feel it negatively affects my work to the point where I decide to put on headphones. And no, I'm not talking about a case where someone is yelling in my ear or someone is blasting death metal behind me. I'm talking about a normal open office where people are generally respectful of each others' space and conscious of distractions.
It's great that you don't find conversations distracting, the problem is that others do. The best solution is to offer a work environment that both meets yours and their needs. An open office environment is death to productivity for lots of developers, they don't have the option to shut a door. It simply doesn't and can't work for a large portion of the work force.
A single person office environment is more productive for almost everyone. But it doesn't have to be forced on you, for example there is no reason why center areas can't be left open for those that prefer them.
But in reality the best way to collaborate is to do it in pieces. You come to my office. I come to yours. We invite the team to a conference room.
Yes, note my first sentence "the trick is giving people control." I was countering the commonly held view that for all people, all the time, no coding can be done with ambient noise. This was the claim of the post I was replying to "If you are constantly expected to be able to 'overhear' conversations while coding, I don't see how you could get anything done."
Let me add a third perspective: like you, I have no problem doing those tasks in some light talking in the room. But the reason is because my brain is quite effective at completely shutting them off. Unless you directly address me, I can be right by your side and not actually hear a word you said to someone else. Hence the benefits of overhearing are completely lost on me.
Meanwhile, when I actually need to fully concentrate, even music can be distracting, so there's loss and no gain.
Most people need to concentrate on their take, especially the ones you mentioned. Code reviewing is difficult as you have to look at what the other person is doing, and on the fly try to understand it, unlike the code you've been writing on for sometime
Unit tests sighs have your undivided attention to make sure you are making the test directly and that you aren't missing anything.
It might be easy for you, but not for others
Perhaps the sweet spot is a hybrid between the two, with mandated "shared" hours where you fraternize with peers in a lax environment in addition to your time spent hacking away in the office free from distraction.
If you really need to get something done, bring your laptop or speak with your supervisor about temporary exemption.
Even if "work" is not being produced in the narrow sense, fraternization has undeniable benefits to a company's culture, productivity, and overall cohesiveness.
To me for software engineering I think right now a good local optimum is:
- Ensure portability of workstations with no loss of productivity (powerful laptops, devices, etc)
- Counteract any dynamics that may inhibit opt-in WFH or remote time. (poor tools, cultural perception that it is not productive to wfh, etc)
- Provide in-office tools to opt-in to better isolation (headphones, private 'plug and play' workstations, etc)
- Try to develop some form of cadence where remote time is the norm on regular intervals. For us it's Tu/Thurs, but you could imagine lots of configurations. People I believe tend to then backlog work which requires dedicated focus for these days.
As with anything, there is a balance, and I believe there is no silver bullet to designing good offices. But I question those who think there is, and that siloing humans into isolated offices (a fundamentally unnatural state) as the default is objectively the best option.
(And before citing the various studies showing the impact on productivity of doing this, I feel productivity is only one characteristic of what I personally consider to be a good measure of a healthy work environment.)