Research impact is typically measured by peer driven citations. Peers also review papers and award grants. All of the above are easily gamed metrics by social engineers independently of the actual value of their work.

I've been working remotely for years with in-person visits on a monthly to quarterly basis. Brain-storming and planning in person definitely create value, but getting the work done is a different story. 10% inspiration (in person, maybe) and 90% perspiration (where they don't have to watch you sweat).

I'm curious how you would determine the "actual value of their work" without considering peer review or award grants? I'm not saying that shoddy work with good marketing deserves to be successful, but doing brilliant research that no one knows about seems like it's not particularly valuable either.

I've also worked with engineers who completely discounted the importance of the social aspect of their work. Frequently even their strongest work had minimal impact on the organization.

That statement about open vs closed door was commonly used to justify open plan offices. Now it is being repurposed to justify in-office work in general. Interesting.

Interesting, I haven't heard the statement used in that way, seems like taking things a bit past their logical conclusion -- after all, the presence of a door implies that the researchers had actual offices.

(My prior job was the first time I've worked in an open plan office so one of my hard requirements in my prior job search was no open plan offices.)