> Simply put, what is the cost involved and relative productivity gained/lost from each layout design. What about experimental designs? Without this type of information, it is difficult to convince a decision maker to improve these conditions. Those metrics need to be quantifiable, not anecdotal (I get more work when there aren't conversations around me vs. I resolved 10 bugs in the open office environment and 25 equivalent bugs in a cubicle).
This has been well documented since the early 2000s. Programmers are statistically and significantly more productive if they have enclosed offices with closing doors. And decision makers that care have been acting on it for just as long (see Joel on Software, I'm not a huge fan, but this has been a harping point of his, as an owner of a software company, for years).
Any company that forces programmers to work in open-plan environments is either ignorant, or just doesn't care.
> Any company that forces programmers to work in open-plan environments is either ignorant, or just doesn't care.
I'll agree with everything you stated but this as the terminology you use makes it sound malicious. Instead, I can imagine consulting firms with plenty of talking points convincing a decision-maker they were right. Furthermore, we cannot assume any particular environment will be optimal for all employees for all companies. "Productivity" was studied, but has branched into more concrete terms, rather than been solved. Even with a company that is open to helping improve conditions, what should they do, how long will the ROI take, etc.
While I accept the assumption of being more productive in an enclosed space, could you point me to a specific paper? Mostly because "productive" is not as well defined and is more a generalized term (respectfully, many terms can fall under the "productive" umbrella). I ask about the paper because a) I'd be curious to see how they define and measure productivity, and b) it may be beneficial for student learning (another knowledge-specific domain)
Recently, I've been wondering why we use exhaust fans in bathrooms and not dehumidifiers. I might be way off base here, but it seems like taking conditioned air that's a little moist and dumping it outside and replacing it with drier unconditioned air would be less efficient than just removing the moisture from the already-conditioned air.
I imagine it isn't one of those things where it's "always cheaper to do X", but there's probably a break-even point. Does anyone know how to do the math to draw that chart?
too dry air ain't very good for your "mucous" membranes (nose, throat, eyes etc). You want to be sicker just to save few bucks for heating? If poor, I guess it's the only option, but otherwise having heated place is same "luxury" as say buying a cheap & good coffee in the morning instead of doing it yourself...
I only take cabs 5-10 times a year anymore, and never in Boston, but I've never been in a cab that pestered me with advertisements. If I found myself in one, it'd be the last ride I took with that company.
On the last flight I took with Delta Airlines they had all the TVs drop down and they played five minutes worth of advertisements on the screens and through the loudspeakers. I just refuse to deal with companies that are hostile to their customers.
The asteroid belt, which is positively TEEMING with possible collisions... billions of objects... yeah, we don't even bother. Ninety-nine (point nine nine nine...) times out of a hundred you won't hit anything. Space is big.
I'm sure there are some people who could safely drive on the roads without speed limits and other traffic laws, but the number of people who could not is far greater. So it is with careful, responsible investing. Many laws are designed to work on a statistical basis, for the greater overall good. This is one of them.
It's not designed to prevent 'ordinary' people from sharing in investment profits, it's designed to protect the public purse from having to support millions of people that lost their savings due to unwise investments.
> But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Yeah... you solve that with employment contracts, not discriminatory hiring practices.
I really don't see how saying "smart people will get bored and quit" is any different from saying "African-Americans are lazy and will eventually stop showing up on time", or some other nonsense.
This has been well documented since the early 2000s. Programmers are statistically and significantly more productive if they have enclosed offices with closing doors. And decision makers that care have been acting on it for just as long (see Joel on Software, I'm not a huge fan, but this has been a harping point of his, as an owner of a software company, for years).
Any company that forces programmers to work in open-plan environments is either ignorant, or just doesn't care.