When I did consult and visited a lot of workplaces (>95% open plan) in the IT sector, the typical 'collocated teams' reality was something like 2 to 3 socialites with apparently non too busy schedules behaving like the place was basically a bar without alcohol, free banter, jokes and non-work related conversations filled the room. Then 10 others wearing heavy headphones, always the one guy wearing explicit building site type noise protectors, and a preppy semi tech function junior type oblivious to the subliminal messages tapping people on the shoulders to get some basic info that is on the first page of the intranet or easily to google in 10 seconds. Did I already mention the 2 people that were just sitting there all day staring, waiting for the others to go home to finally find the peace to get some work done?

and then you forget to list them.

Just like you forgot to list the counter-argument examples of remote teams being better.

But seriously... I would expect there to be examples of both - Good remote teams. Good office teams. Bad remote teams. Bad office teams.

And every shade in between.

I'd, personally, prefer a mix? Couple days in the office... couple days remote. Time to "schmooze" with the team. Time to be in a quiet place to concentrate.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Anyone that claims one extreme is better or worse generally misses the truth: The best option is generally somewhere in the middle of the extremes.

I agree, we seem to shove such strict guidelines on ideas that can very easily be left to considering a mixture of both instead of one over the other.

Rapid Software devopment by Maconnal