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.

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.

>Certainly less easy than joining in on a conversation you overhear while sitting at your desk.

Great! No more distracting me with conversations while I'm trying to work! If you want me in the conversation, ask me. Don't take my choice away.

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?

>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.

> 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.

Just one line dev's two cents.

>> 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.

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.

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.

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 : )

Just wait at the coffee machine

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Some concrete examples:

- Fixing or writing unit tests

- Performing (low risk) operational + maintenance tasks

- Refactoring

- Design tweaks and improvements

- Deployments

- Building simple features

- Reviewing code

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.

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.

Meanwhile, when I actually need to fully concentrate, even music can be distracting, so there's loss and no gain.

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.

- 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.