Still running strong after 1,532 days without a code change.

Re:Still running strong after 1,532 days without a code change. by SonicSoul on Friday July 13, 2012 @10:27PM (#4242885)

this building gets mentioned in a lot of management books and "where good ideas come from" to illustrate a good collaborative environment. it has been replicated by quite a few places with various degrees of success. its main function is that there are no permanent work places so that people are forced to collaborate. This has not always worked out well.

could it be that MIT happened to have a lot of smart people and they created good things while working in building 2.0, and they would have created just as many great things if they worked in another building?

maybe im just extra skeptical because im currently reading "Fooled by Randomness" :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Still running strong after 1,532 days without a code change. by gruseom on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:29AM (#4243241)

It's quite possible that the building was special and did have an effect that was lost when people tried to replicate it. Trying to replicate things is usually a losing game.

For example, I bet they didn't replicate its temporariness or the fact that you could make holes in it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Still running strong after 1,532 days without a code change. by cpeterso on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:41AM (#4243148)

Good point. It can be easy to conflate cause, effect, and coincidence.

The lesson I take from the story is that the smart people had extreme freedom to pursue their research. I don't think a university can just create a dumpy building and hope to produce some Nobel prizes. <:)

[ Parent | on HN ]