Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How To Get Rid of the Cubicle?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 24, 2006 02:48 AM
from the i-suggest-a-hammer-and-a-pry-bar dept.
wikinerd writes "How can we get rid of the widely hated cubicle and its ugly cousin, the stressing open-plan office? Some business owners and managers cannot understand the advantages of teleworking, different office layouts, or the morale benefits of private offices with Aeron chairs. There are still people in high positions who seem to think that stuffing a bunch of engineers into a noisy landscaped office is the best way to organize a company. It is not, and we all know it, but can we prove it? How can we communicate to them the fact that living in a groundhog warren is bad not only for the engineers, but also for the organization?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] 'Roofing' Your Cubicle? 28 comments
Alex Bischoff asks: "At work, I'm forced to suffer in my cubicle with overhead fluorescent lighting. So, I've given some thought to building a "roof" to block out that light, at which point I could use my own incandescent lighting to light the area (or perhaps an Eclipse Computer Light). Anyhow, at first I was going to just drape a sheet across the top of the cubible walls, and weigh them down somehow. But, after some thought, I'm thinking that might be too low, as the cubicle walls are only about five feet high (so would "stilts" for the sheet work?). So, has anyone built a 'cubicle roof' before? Any ideas on how to go about this?" Maybe a 'cubicle tent' would be more appropriate here? Especially for those cubicle warriors who are unusually tall.
[+] Companies Move Away From Cubicle Culture 509 comments
Makarand writes "According to this Mercury News article companies are freeing employees from their cubicles to save on corporate real estate costs. By eliminating the need for offices for thousands of employees they are reducing their building needs by thousands of square feet. Employees now work in shared areas or from home or elsewhere outside the traditional cubicle. Those who prove to be unproductive when they have to share space with others risk getting fired. This trend is expected to accelerate as wireless technologies are making workers more mobile and capable of working from anywhere. About 13000 of Sun Microsystems' 35000 employees working in Santa Clara (CA) currently lack offices."
[+] Plants for Cubicles? 150 comments
Frank of Earth asks: "Our company recently moved to a new location and I was lucky enough to get a cube with a window. Now that I actually can benefit from sunshine, I thought it would be cool to grow something in a potted container. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of information on growing plants in your cube. Most of the indoor plant growing topics I found are related to illegal types of plant growing you do in your closet. What types of plants make good cube plants with a geek flare? Rather than just growing a boring spider plant, I would like to grow something cool like a fruit or vegetable. If you've had experience growing something unique, please post your thoughts!" What kind of plant would you grow in your cubicle?
[+] How Much Do You Value Your Office Space? 165 comments
reason asks: "I've heard that office space costs around $10,000 per employee, and sometimes much more. I have a great office: it's a nice size and I have a lovely view out the window. It's a good working environment, and I know I'm lucky. Still, if it came down to dollar terms, I'd be willing to share my office with a colleague or even move into a cubicle in exchange for a mere $5,000/year pay rise. Am I undervaluing what I have? If you have an office to yourself, how much would they have to pay you to make you willingly give it up? If you don't have an office, how much of a pay cut would you be prepared to take to get one?"
[+] Technology: Cubicles a Giant Mistake 374 comments
J to the D writes "Apparently even the designer of the cubicle believes now that they are a bad idea." From the article: "After years of prototyping and studying how people work, and vowing to improve on the open-bullpen office that dominated much of the 20th century, Propst designed a system he thought would increase productivity (hence the name Action Office). The young designer, who also worked on projects as varied as heart pumps and tree harvesters, theorized that productivity would rise if people could see more of their work spread out in front of them, not just stacked in an in-box."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • fp (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2006, @02:49AM (#16971552)
    Upper management loves stats; give them stats.
    • Re:fp (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2006, @02:52AM (#16971578)
      i would have got first post, but my boss was walking behind me when I first saw the artical, and I had to hide the /. window..

      I want my own office!
    • Re:fp (Score:4, Informative)

      by Baldrake (776287) on Friday November 24 2006, @09:04AM (#16973790)
      Upper management loves stats; give them stats.

      And here's where to get them [amazon.com].

      This book, Excellence by Design, came out of the MIT School of Architecture and Planning's Space Planning and Organization Research Group (SPORG), and links the use of space in offices to productivity, within the domain of the kind of work being carried out.

      • by ArsenneLupin (766289) on Friday November 24 2006, @04:39AM (#16972178)
        This is not a problem in NZ. Is this an American thing? I work in an open plan office in NZ at an un-named Tertiary institution and its great. There are anywhere between 5-7 of us in the room at any time and the communication within the team is excellent, thought provocative and means we're not just staring at a screen all day, which needs time away from now and then.

        Cheers,
        5 - 7 is not that much people. Try 30 instead. Or 50.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2006, @06:51AM (#16972948)
          <sarcasm>
          Yes, try changing your organization to being 6 times as large and then you'll find that the unrealistic assumption of TFAS:

          "It is not, and we all know it"

          May become slightly more true.
          </sarcasm>

          I mean the whole concept that "we all know" that cubicles / open-plan offices are bad is bullshit to begin with, so there's no way we can simply "communicate" this "fact" to management.

          Every company I have ever worked in has used open-plan offices with 8-20 people and there has not been any problem.

          If the stupid precept TFAS was trying to get across was modified to say "open-plan offices are bad for 40+ people" then I might agree, but at the moment we're being asked to prove something that simply isn't true.

          A lot of us don't work in offices with more than 10 people and the idea of shutting people away into offices is dumb, as is the idea that everyone will be able to communicate effectively if they are all at home. I can't believe I'm reading a question that says open-plan offices are bad and raises telecommuting as a sensible way to run a business. It's telecommuting that's the dumb idea, and the managers all know it. Email and IM simply do not have the bandwidth of face-to-face communication. Unless you really are just stuck in front of a terminal all day doing your own work which never interfaces to anyone else's, telecommuting does not work.

          But here we have a situation where all managers are supposed to be "idiots" that need to show humility to the uberknowledge of the geeks; whereas the geeks show absolutely no inclination to look at the subjects sensibly or from a business-oriented perspective. The evidence is in the careless way the precept is phrased - such as to make it not even true. Yeah, people, let us all go to our managers and tell them in absolute terms that open-plan offices are always bad with no evidence or even common sense to back us up. That's "communication", right?

          Or maybe it's just the rise of the pointy-haired programmer.
          • Email and IM simply do not have the bandwidth of face-to-face communication.

            No they don't, but not everybody needs to communicate with face-to-face level of bandwidth continuously throughout the day. Also, there is
            still this thing called a telephone, which provides more bandwidth than e-mail and IM, and is sometimes useful when telecommuting. It might
            not be reasonable to run a company based 100% on telecommuting, but to suggest that it (telecommuting) is a dumb idea in general flies in the
            face of a lot of experience that suggests otherwise. It just has be be applied properly, like any other tool.

          • by jc42 (318812) on Friday November 24 2006, @12:28PM (#16975974) Homepage Journal
            It's telecommuting that's the dumb idea, and the managers all know it. Email and IM simply do not have the bandwidth of face-to-face communication.

            Well, yes and no. As with the claim that cubicles and open-plan offices are always bad, this also depends on the task.

            Historically, technical people have often collaborated very effectively via print media. The reason is well understood: There are a lot of technical concepts that can't be expressed easily in English or any other "human" language. To communicate effectively, you need to use a blackboard or a piece of paper - or email. Things like equations, diagrams and software can't be communicated effectively via a speech medium; they can only be expressed in writing.

            I've seen this on a lot of projects. Very often, I end up just listening quietly in meetings, because it's obvious that people aren't communicating very well. Afterwards, I'll type up my analysis and suggestions, and email them. That's where the actual communication takes place. Then management wants a meeting to discuss things, and we have another meeting where people are talking past each other, and again I mostly sit and listen.

            Note that I'm not claiming that this is always true. Some topics can be discussed verbally. And if the group's problems are mostly personal, verbal interactions can be the fastest way to get to the crux of the problems.

            But saying that telecommuting is a dumb idea is itself a dumb idea, as bad as claiming that open office plans are always wrong. Some of the most effective computing projects have been done by groups that never meet face to face. I've done some successful projects with people that I've never met. And I've seen group meetups that were quite enjoyable and successful social occasions, but which didn't contribute at all to the project's progress.

            It all depends on what you need to communicate, and what's the best language for that communication.

        • by Shaper_pmp (825142) on Friday November 24 2006, @05:53AM (#16972660)
          I'm a non-USian who has worked in several open-plan offices and hated it.

          Is it made impossible to concentrate simply by virtue of the fact the office is open-plan? No.

          Does it mean it's impossible to guarantee an environment conducive to concentration, irrespective of how much you really, really need to concentrate? Yes.

          Does it make it more likely that any interruption to any other worker in the office will also interrupt you, or break your concentration? Yes.

          Does it mean you're in contact with many other people, so your "chance of being noisily interrupted" must be multiplied by the number of people in the office? Yes.

          Does it mean that one inconsiderate person out of a whole office can damage much more than their own productivity? Yes.

          (n.b. Bad managers are notoriously bad for underestimating the loss of productivity when they break your concentration for something trivial. I've had a manager complaining about my productivity who used to shout down the length of the room to ask my e-mail address, when I'd worked for him for two years, my address was in his Outlook address book and even when he had it written down in his desk drawer. And once you drop the eggs [catb.org] it can take half an hour or more to get back up to speed again. In a busy, noisy department with 50 people in it, you can easily go entire months without achieving flow state [wikipedia.org] even once.)

          Also, although of course there's a heft amount of deviation, national character might have something to do with it, too. The Swedish and Dutch people I've met tend to be very considerate and quiet, while the Americans (as a nation) to tend more to the loud, less considerate "get-things-done-even-if-I-have-to-shout-while-I-d o-it" stereotype.
            • by Shaper_pmp (825142) on Friday November 24 2006, @07:32AM (#16973122)
              Close. What I'm saying is "closed doors offer a more substantial layer of protection from assholes".

              Walls and doors cut down on the unintentional noise of people around you, and a closed or locked door offers a strong social proscription against interruption. Hell, in the worst case you can just not answer the door and pretend you were out when they (briefly) knocked.

              In open-plan offices some people end up being assholes without even intending it. Offices effectively raise the barrier to entry for assholedom.
  • I Quit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TechyImmigrant (175943) * on Friday November 24 2006, @02:51AM (#16971568) Journal
    I didn't like my cube ridden environment. I quit and joined an employer who did these things better.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      That's the only way to get through to these people. I also refuse to work in a cubicled environment, and I'm a contractor...

      Bob
    • Re:I Quit (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cliffski (65094) on Friday November 24 2006, @04:00AM (#16971978) Homepage
      Best answer. You shouldnt spend half your working life explaining to your higher-paid employer how he is doing his job wrong. I went one further and quit entirely and now work for myself. My employer has a perfect grasp of what I need to boost my productivity.
  • Can't be done. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by $pearhead (1021201) on Friday November 24 2006, @02:54AM (#16971588)
    Unfortunately, you can't.

    As one of my colleagues use to say: "You can't explain to someone who doesn't understand." (freely translated from Swedish).
    • Telecommuting (Score:3, Interesting)

      Beats everything! Just like offshoring, except no damn foreigners!

      Lots of selling points: No office space costs. Employees pay for own coffee. Envionmentally friendly. It is the new wave.

      • Re:Telecommuting (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Martix (722774) on Friday November 24 2006, @06:24AM (#16972790)
        I was working for a place were i could do 80% of the work at home.

        But the people I was working for did not like the idea.

        The only time i did work at home is during a bad snow storm were it was not safe to drive the 150 Km to work.

        THe job was building control panels and pc boards as well as PLC programing.

        With that job I just needed to be in the office/work space for install and final testing so it could be shiped out and pick up the next pile of parts ect.

        I could build the units faster at home with less distractions The dreaded phone ect.

        Saveings for the company one less workspace/office needed

        In the end the company when belly up because of cost over runs office space ect.

        I for one don't miss the 2 hour average drive to work and back home.

        Now I work nearby travel 10 minutes to work and do some part time repair work at home for a sound and lighting company.

        Making more money because im not burning up 160 dollars in gas a week and the car will last longer.
        As well as enjoying more home time with my family.

        I also do a part time bussness at home now restoring old records and 78 ect as well.( got more time because of less travel)

        If more people would and could telecommut it would do a lot for the planet.
        and the quailty of life.

        But some have the old school mentalaty if not in the office not working but if you got someting to show at the end of the week. EI control panels to install or paperwork done and brought in so you can pick up the next batch/work list.

    • Peopleware (Score:4, Interesting)

      by famebait (450028) on Friday November 24 2006, @08:15AM (#16973336)
      Buy the boss a copy of the book "Peopleware" for christmas. It goes into great detail in documenting how stressful environments do not make economic sense, in a way that is believable for business people too.

      That said, private offices are not necessarily the best solution. People who work together on the same thing can get great benefits from sitting together. The tragedy of the cube farms and open plan offoces is that they are almost never used for what the whole point was: to rearrange frequently according to needs.

      My ideal office has "project rooms" that can house a handful of people working together, and shielded them fom disturbance from other groups. Enhances communication, less disturbance overall, and the noise there is is less of a problem, because noise from someone working on the same thing as you is much less distrubing than noise from unrelated activities.

      But a good and often more realistic runner-up is to just lobby for the opportunity to use the capabilities that cube systems and open office plans offer: arrange your project group togeter. Use a lagoon layout (sit back-to back) so you get a "safe" and cohesive "inside" area, a good perimiter to shield against the rest of the world, and easy access to scoot over to your coworker when you want to show or discuss something. Avoid the more obvious island arrangement (face-to-face), where monitors act as walls betweeen project partners, and you ahve to take a walk to see someone else's screen, the outside world stresses you out behind your back, anf the feng shui is just generally destructive.
  • by NineNine (235196) on Friday November 24 2006, @02:55AM (#16971594) Homepage
    How can we communicate to them the fact that living in a groundhog warren is bad not only for the engineers, but also for the organization?"

    I would speak to "them" with your voice (mouth, tongue, voal cords, et. al), either in person, or via telephone. Barring that, I would use a written format, such as "email" or "letter", in a lanugage that "them" would readily comprehend.

    Are there some other, hidden, secret forms of communication that I'm missing, here?
    • Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

      by killjoe (766577) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:31AM (#16971798)
      Depends on your company doesn't it? I used to work for a giant company. The decisions about our working conditions were made across the country literally thousands of miles away. Yes you could email those people but they literally had no idea who you were and didn't give a flying fuck. To them your entire location was just one number on the spreadsheet. If updrading the bathroom so that it doesn't smell like stale ass made that number go up then they wouldn't do it.

      In large companies it's another world. At my company when the programmers requested offices with doors (two to an office) the company refused. When the assistant to the accountant demanded an office she got one. The only office available was too big for her position so they spent a ton of money making the office smaller. What's odd is that making the office smaller for her actually cost more then building walls in the programmers space to give the programmers walls (we know this because we got quotes from the same construction company).

      • Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)

        by kilodelta (843627) on Friday November 24 2006, @08:14AM (#16973326)
        I don't recall where I read it but some time back someone had posted a long explanation that 150 was a magic number. That was the point at which everyone knew everyone else in an organization (even a company!) and anything over that meant that you had a serious disconnect going on.

        There's a manufacturer in Delaware that practices this. Each factory caps at 150 people and then they open a new facility, until that too gets to 150 people and so on.

        What they found was that productivity and communication improved in such circumstances. And it doesn't mean you can't have large companies, what it means is that you've broken management down into units where the so called leader now knows the employee. Makes a big difference.

        When I worked for a major university, it was hard to get to know the people because there were so many staff. But then when I worked for a state agency with only 238 people it became easier. Even then, my strategy was to get to know the support people in the various groups, they'd then clue you in to other details.
  • I like open plan (Score:5, Informative)

    by tom17 (659054) on Friday November 24 2006, @02:55AM (#16971596) Homepage
    Is it just me?

    I have worked in IT environments in both Open plan with cubicles, Small offices of about 4 and open plan with desks.

    I preferred both of the open plan options (i.e. with or without cubicles) than the small office. It may get noisy at times but it can be more sociable too.

    Maybe I am just a freak...
    • Re:I like open plan (Score:5, Informative)

      by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:28AM (#16971780)
      Actually, Microsoft has done a lot of work in this area. They have a model they claim works very well for creative teams, consisting of a "common" open work area with reconfigurable moving walls you can write on, surrounded by shared offices, plus "escape pods" where people can go be alone with their project. You can see a channel 9 video on this here: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2383 21 [msdn.com]

      It's very interesting.
    • Re:I like open plan (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tim Browse (9263) on Friday November 24 2006, @06:39AM (#16972882)

      The best environment I've ever worked in was an office that was an old country house [xara.com], and most offices had 2 people in them. A few had 3 people. It's probably still the most productive environment.

      However, one of the reasons was that there was a communal kitchen (well, when I say kitchen, it was a sink/drink making facilities at the end of the corridor), and people used to go there for tea/coffee breaks at 11am and 3pm. And when I say those times, I mean we would do it religiously. There was no official time or anything, it just seemed to be a subconscious consensus (it sometimes reminded me of synchronisation of menstruation via pheromones, but only superficially :-)).

      The important thing was, those coffee breaks would often last 30-40 minutes. To a manager, that seems like an awful lot of wasted time - 15 coders standing around chatting for an hour a day. But the important point was that was where/how we socialised, and how a lot of problems were solved. It probably saved a lot of time, because you had 15 smart people standing around hearing (mostly) about what everyone was working on that day, and the problems that had come up. Everyone knew what was going on in all the other sections of the project they were working on, and how things were going.

      Interestingly, when a kitchen was opened upstairs (we were on two floors) the staff then split into two kitchen groups. The managers were upstairs (along with some of the coders), and the downstairs guys often complained that they were out of the loop, and didn't get to hear about everything they should have. So it's a tricky balance, but like I say, I've never been so productive. Other aspects of the company were less than ideal, but the physical working environment was pretty good.

      I still can't believe I only drank 2 cups of tea a day while working there...that can't be right.

  • by jdblair (3634) on Friday November 24 2006, @02:55AM (#16971600)
    I've worked in closed offices and in cubicles, and they each have their plusses and minuses. The best thing about cubicles is that you overhear some of the conversations that other members of your team are having. This can be really helpful for a small team working on a complex project, as I sometimes overhear something I should know about, or something I can give useful input into. In other words, working in cubicles can be really good for team dynamics.

    On the other hand, the worst part about working in cubicles is the same thing-- your neighbor's loud conversation can be annoying and disturb your concentration. The lack of privacy can be annoying.

    On balance, if I like the team I'm working with, I prefer working in the cube farm.
    • by mwanaheri (933794) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:36AM (#16971832)
      On balance, if I like the team I'm working with, I prefer working in the cube farm.
      According to my personal experience, the most efficient team-size is up to five. If you group your teams in offices, there is no need for cubes. Big pro of non-cube: you see where the noise comes from. I find that less disturbing/hate producing. Having your teams in offices, a good placement of coffemaker and xerox machine makes inter-team communication easier. Corridor-drums are very efficient.
  • by bunions (970377) on Friday November 24 2006, @02:55AM (#16971602)
    prefereably in a mainstream publication showing that, in fact, private offices and Aeron chairs are in fact cost-efective. If you can show this to management, you oughta be good to go. Showing them an article by Joel and saying "but ... but ... my concentration!" probably isn't gonna do it.

    I'm still dubious. I mean, yeah, sure, I'd much rather have a nice quiet office, an aeron and the fastest desktop available connected to dual 21" monitors. Who wouldn't? But does anyone actually have some sort of operational study showing that it does, in fact, increase productivity [i]that[/i] much? Joel makes a good case, but most of it is simply appeals to our programmer instincts, and has little to do with fact.
  • In the UK... (Score:5, Informative)

    by linuxci (3530) * on Friday November 24 2006, @02:59AM (#16971618)
    In the UK open plan offices are very common but cubes are virtually unheard of. I've heard very few complaints about open plan offices in the UK, as long as there's a decent amount of space between people then it's fine and can create a good atmosphere, too crowded and then it can be a pain.

    However, people who are used to their own private office will find the extra noise disturbing and there's a problem where you can't just close a door when you don't want disturbed.

    Where I work the next two levels of management are also in the open plan office. Not sure about the people above them, they're on a different floor and I've never needed to visit them.
    • by fantomas (94850) on Friday November 24 2006, @06:42AM (#16972898)
      Ok, I'll raise to your bait. I'm in the UK and I hate open plan offices. There you go! one more complaint to add to your "few" :-)

      I'm a PhD student in a department of the Open University (yes there are on-campus postgrad students at the Open University). I work in an open plan office. I'll say up front we get a generous amount of space, a big desk, our own shelf space, comfy chairs. There are 24 spaces divided into 6 areas. These are in the middle of a whole floor single room area. But not everybody 'lives' here: this is how the building was designed, but then the senior management insisted that they needed offices, so offices for the more important people were built the length of the floor on both sides against the windows. So we have offices down the sides (one and two person) and open plan up the middle.

      I can't concentrate in the open plan area: there is too much noise. It's ok if I just want to do routine work, but if I have to think hard then there are just too many noise distractions. I think there's some basic sociology happening here: I don't believe 20 or so people can all be on the same work rhythm. 4 people in an office maybe: you can negotiate when is 'heads down hard concentrating' time and when is 'ok lets let off some steam and chat about tv/sport/whatever' time. I just don't think this can happen with 24 people. Particularly in an office like ours where people keep different time schedules. I don't think people are being selfish, they just forget other people are maybe in a different head state at different times. Some people can work with headphones on listening to music, but me, I just end up concentrating on the music....

      Add to this the offices down the side: I've noticed an interesting effect: people will go into the rooms to do serious business and have their meetings, but as they leave the office, standing in the doorway, they have broken out of serious business mode and that's the place they carry out the chit-chat /social grooming ("how are the kids? did you see the football last night? let me tell you a funny joke..."). And... standing in the doorway means - 1.5 metres from somebody in the open plan area's desk!!! So we get the disruptive social chat.

      Also at one end of the floor is the entrance, at the other end is the meeting room. So we get passing meeting room traffic. Another distraction. Grrr. Life in a goldfish bowl when you are trying to do the hardest work of your life. What do I do? I pay for a broadband connection and work from home....

      Sorry about the length of the post, you can see this has been therapy letting off some steam, grin!!!

  • by NerveGas (168686) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:06AM (#16971644)

          Our company moved into a relatively nice office building, paying quite a bit of rent, just because the president of the company thought that it gave us more credibility - even though we rarely have ANYONE from the industry come to our offices.

          One day, I took the VP aside and gave him some numbers - I showed him that if we were able to telecommute, we could run a t1 to every employee's home, and still come out a few thousand cheaper each month than rent. Because the VP once new someone who slacked off when telecommuting, he completely rejected the idea. Ah, well.

          Even though we're officially a non-telecommuting office, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. When I really don't feel like going in to the office, I call and tell them that I can either work from home that day, or just take the day off. I usually get to work from home.

    steve
  • Office (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slidersv (972720) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:14AM (#16971692) Journal
    If top management believes it's the best choice, no staff would convince them otherwise. The only way i see it is form some kind of petition BEFORE your company is moving to new offices or before reconstruction.
    I'm not sure how the petition would work when everything is already in place.

    Few complaints here and there isn't going to deter top management's belief.

    Fortunately my company has open-space for some and offices for others, so all I had to do is get promoted. Some companies do not offer offices for nobody but the top-management. Then if it bothers you that much, you could either rise through ranks to board member, or join another company.
  • by NerveGas (168686) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:14AM (#16971698)

        Years ago, our company had an office that was fairly low-rent, and didn't have cubicles. We just set up some desks around the edges of the office space, and some in the middle. One of the coders, in particular, had his desk facing the wall, and everyone in the room could see what was on him monitor.

        This same coder had his email client set to automatically open new messages. Yes, you can guess what it coming - one day, right after he left for lunch, he received some porn spam. Not just any porn spam, but some pretty far-out stuff, the kind that even most people who like porn wouldn't go for. The next person to walk past his desk was the VP of the company...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2006, @03:22AM (#16971744)
    Private Offices Used for..

    1) Showing higher status
    2) Shagging the Intern/Teenage Junior
    3) Surfing on the internet without being spotted by other employees
    4) Playing music in
    5) Watching TV in
    6) Sleeping in

    Open Plan Offices

    1) being forced to do what you are paid to do as long as someone else is bothered to monitor your activity
    2) Daydreaming about Orgies involving all the teenage interns and juniors until interupted by supervisor for not looking like focused on work
    3) Chair Races when supervisor in toilet
    4) Smelling other people's farts
    5) Organising fag breaks
    6) Discussing last night's TV, night out or spousal problems.

  • by o'reor (581921) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:24AM (#16971760) Journal
    1. Whenever you're on a business trip abroad, buy small plush toys at the airport to make gifts for your co-workers.
    2. When you've done enough trips, everybody has at least one plus toy on its desk
    3. Twice a day (possibly more), when the project manager is out of the room, yell : "PLUUUUUUUUUUUUSH FIGHT !"
    4. Enjoy as the plush toys begin flying around.
    5. If this does not decide your manager to create smaller, separated offices, at least it's a good way to have fun. ;-)
    This is really what happened daily a few years ago when I was working with some 20 other co-workers in an open space lab. Oh, and the fact that most of us were under 30 *did* help us enjoy it ;-)
  • by neonux (1000992) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:26AM (#16971766)

    Read Peopleware and offer it to your manager for Christmas, this book is the bible about productivity in IT.

    It is extensively implemented at Google (and Microsoft for instance) by letting each developer have his own desk - with the door shut - or have a small desk with 2 to 4 people inside, in order to improve focus as it is critical developers doesn't lose focus too often as it is very easy to do when you work in a open space.

    A typical developer needs 15 minutes to get into the "mental flow" of productive work, so even if he is disturbed for only 3 minutes, he will really lose about 15+3 minutes because of the delay of being in the right/productive "mental flow" again.

    Additionnaly this book is all about employee happiness == employee productivity.

    http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projec ts-Teams-Ed/dp/0932633439 [amazon.com]
    • by mangastudent (718064) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:39AM (#16971862)
      I was going to mention Peopleware but neonux beat me to it. However, no matter how popular, well reasoned, etc. that book (and others) are, it's been out since 1987 and pretty much all of the industry ignores its messages on productivity.

      I think the only overall answer to this problem is a variant of Natural Selection. Companies like gasp Microsoft (despite all their internal/architectural/legacy problems), and I hear Google as well, manage to beat companies that don't "get it". And this is not just a component of why, but evidence of the understanding their management has about at least some of the things that are important.

  • by nick_davison (217681) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:26AM (#16971768)
    Some business owners and managers cannot understand the advantages of teleworking, different office layouts, or the morale benefits of private offices with Aeron chairs.

    Thank god someone dared to say this.

    I've been looking for an just such an environment: where I can stay home, doze in a really comfortable chair with no one around to catch me, completely refuse to interact with team members except via IMs and e-mails on my own passive aggressive schedule and justify my lack of productivity on my home ISP that's like totally unreliable so it's not my fault I wasn't even logged in all morning, let alone working. I'm never going to power level my Warcraft character if I have to keep alt-tabbing out whenever my boss walks by.

    Now when will managers get a clue and realize this kind of shining future would be awesome for my morale!?
  • by plopez (54068) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:28AM (#16971784)
    1) People are commodities. When one quits we can just hire another one jus as good...
    2) Cost, cost is everything. we need to squeeze every penny we can from floor space.
    3) Everyone else does it so it must work.
    4) Offices are reserved for high skill positions, like management.

    There you have it, how they think.
  • Call me crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by georgewilliamherbert (211790) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:31AM (#16971808)
    ...but for anything other than programmer teams, I want my people talking and cooperating on fixing problems, and cubes, open offices, bullpens and the like work just dandy.

    I do IT operations and development rather than programming, so they are different work types. Joel may be right for cutting edge programmer productivity. But I've also seen very productive very loud programmer teams in open offices.

    Some programmers will do terribly in that environment, but many will either thrive on the noise or tune it out (or put on headphones).
  • by emmagsachs (1024119) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:33AM (#16971820)
    Everything is looked at through the lens of the Dollar. As management listens to whatever research and advisory firms already output, let's see what Gartner, as an example, has to say on the subject.

    Processor.com, July 2, 2004 [processor.com]:
    As vice president for research firm Gartner, the world's largest IT research group, he's studied the question at length and learned that just because a new technology makes something possible, it does not, sadly, make that very thing probable... "I can point to clear examples where call centers are highly virtualized," says Raskino, "with agents working almost entirely from their homes." But when he speaks to other managers about how virtual technologies are being used, they look at him in utter disbelief. "They say, 'Can it be possible? I'm sure our unions won't accept it.' The forces of inertia get in the way. They don't stop the change, of course. They just slow it down."

    Gartner.com, 30 Oct 2001 [gartner.com]:
    In his October 30 address at Symposium/ITxpo 2001 in Brisbane. Gartner vice president and research director Simon Hayward... enjoyed poking fun at today's cubicle environment, using the cartoon character Dilbert to help him out. "It's not just the workers who are objecting to the cubicle culture," he told his audience. "Managers also recognize that people will be more effective if the environment is better adapted to the reality of work."

    CFO.com, October 01, 2006 [cfo.com]:
    Another factor pushing companies to reconsider office space is the widening gap between what workers need and what workplaces provide. At one time, office employees labored primarily in solitude; today, they spend two-thirds of their time collaborating, according to Gartner. But offices are still set up for the old style of work. "In most companies, you find that conference rooms are overbooked while offices and cubicles are empty," says Mark Golan, Cisco's vice president of worldwide real estate and the chairman of CoreNet. "It's insane. Not only is it wasteful, it doesn't suit the needs of your workforce."

    Even if you can build the case against cubicles, you still need to be able to communicate with management. That means, y'know, diplomacy, communication skills, a lil bit of cunning, and what not.

    Nevertheless, you might be heard, but don't expect them to listen.
    Of course, if they've already invested in cubicles, tough luck. Nothing's gonna change their minds. Cubicles might be less productive than other office layouts, but dumping an existing design == dumping money. Bad ROI.

    As for Aeron chairs? Why not demand an onsite spa and inhouse office-desk pizza delivery while you're at it?
  • by Harri (100020) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:33AM (#16971824) Homepage

    Being a "software engineer" doesn't mean that I spend my head down programming all the time. Half of being a competent engineer is teamwork, and that works much better in an open-plan office.

    I wonder whether people's objections to open-plan environments come from experiences with bad acoustics, or in offices shared between developers and sales staff that are on the phone all the time. In the open-plan offices I've been in, unwanted interruptions from other people's noise have been minimal - mainly due to good acoustic design, but also partly due to everybody being reasonably considerate and taking loud conversations off to a meeting room.

    Anyway, not all sofware engineers are hermits! Some of us are sociable!

  • by Bromskloss (750445) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:39AM (#16971870)
    Weren't we, just recently, all for OpenOffice?
  • by pakar (813627) on Friday November 24 2006, @04:54AM (#16972274)
    and.....

    1. Start talking really loud.
    2. Stop taking showers.
    3. Fart atleast once every 10 minutes.

    Good thing here is if you are located very close to your manager :)

  • by MickDownUnder (627418) on Friday November 24 2006, @05:23AM (#16972466)
    Use SCRUM !!

    Create groups of 5 co-workers strap them together with ropes back to back eliminating the need for chairs or desks.

    Every morning pitch scrums against each other making them run from opposites sides of the office to clash in the middle. The team that manages to push the other team back to their side of the office gets to spend half the day eating coffee and drinking doughnuts, whilst the other team is forced to refactor all the work done by the winning team the previous day.

    I think I should be writting books on this stuff.
  • by Aceticon (140883) on Friday November 24 2006, @06:24AM (#16972792)
    You could start by adjusting your pitch:
    - Sounding angry doesn't help
    - Teleworking is a whole different ball game. There's a lot more factors in teleworking that just offering a potential work environment.
    - Going for private offices with Aeron chairs is a long shot and it weakens your whole argument.

    I'll explain:
    - Nobody negociates with angry people
    - Teleworking can decrease communication within the team. In my experience phoneing the guy working from home is harder than just turning your head and talking to him - this does not affect discussion of "immediate and important" factors/issues but does affect all others. Above all, the person working from home will be much less likelly to "absorve knowledge from the shared knowledge pool of his collegues" (in other words, that person is less part of the gestalt that is the team). Also, some people work beter out of home, either because of their personality (some people work beter working alongside other people) or because their home environment is not conducent to concentration (for example, due to noisy kids).
    - Two points:
    a) In our current corporate culture, private offices are still seen a symbol of status, which in practice means they're a management perk.
    b) Why are you going for expensive chair associated with the excesses of the dot-com bust?

    I sugest aiming for group offices - closed spaces with 5 or 6 people. Big enough for a team, small enough to significantly reduce noise and visual distractions. Best of all, it helps build team spirit.
  • Different people (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Friday November 24 2006, @10:58AM (#16974936) Homepage
    Different people respond to cubicles and open-plan offices differently.

    Management tends to consist of extroverts. They're in meetings or on the phone with lots of different people all day. This energizes them. Spending an entire day in a closed office typing code on a keyboard is the worst torture they could think of. They understand that you like it, but they have no idea why. At least with cubicles you're able to chat with your neighbors while you work so that your experience with the company isn't so awful.

    Engineers, especially the good ones, tend to consist of introverts. Spend an entire week with nothing but a problem to be solved and your tools and you're in heaven. Meetings and chatter with your neighbors are not good things: they're interruptions. Worse, they're draining. The definition of torture is that you accomplish nothing all day due to constant meetings and chatter. Its exhausting and not in a good way. If you're lucky your music headphones at least let you pretend that your alone so you can occasionally get some work done.

    Its a personality trait thing. Any good psychologist could explain it.
    • Re:Productivity? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by frosty_tsm (933163) on Friday November 24 2006, @03:36AM (#16971836)
      Perhaps, but that's the mentality of the management.

      - Should an employee take a pay cut for something that makes them more productive?
      - Does a little goofing off really damage overall productivity?

      I say a happy, motivated employee who can concentrate when he wants to get stuff done is going to be far more valuable.