Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!dduck!duncan From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Office Survey Results.................. Message-ID: <17357@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 8 Aug 89 12:58:14 GMT References: <10440004@hp-lsd.HP.COM> <6474@pdn.paradyne.com> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Lines: 178 In article <6474@pdn.paradyne.com> reggie@dinsdale.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) writes: > Most people seem to share the same opinions on this subject. >However, there was one entry that took a different view: >>At Bellcore, we have, almost for all technical staff, two-person closed >>offices -- most without windows. >>The privacy is nice on occasion, but the isolation from one another is, in my >>opinion, a psychological factor that may not be well studied. I have read the >>reports about private offices, phone pick-up, noise reduction, etc. I know >>they advocate all three as productivity enhancers. > >I have to disagree here. The privacy is not nice on occasion. It is essential >when performing tasks that require thinking and concentration. *I* never had >to close the door at Bellcore. I've almost never closed the door (only for interviews of candidates or when other people in the room wished it closed). And I never felt I had to due to any noise. > At other places I have worked there is *NO* >escape from the noise. I also arrive at work very early in the morning so >that I can get something done before the noise starts around 8AM. Actually, I got into the habit of arriving early almost ANYWHERE that I worked to get things done, not before noise began, but before meetings began and un- scheduled tasks arose. I have always found interruptions by people actively wanting my attention (rather than area noise) to be the biggest problem no matter where I've worked. And I have worked in single office, double-office, and open architecture places -- at least two different jobs with each kind of layout. >>I agree with the noise and the phone pick-up. I am not so sure that the of- >>fice privacy comes without its down side. I have been to various HP loca- >>tions (as well as those of many other companies). I do not feel that the >>open style at HP was noisy or invaded my sense of "privacy" in any meaning- >>ful way. > >I find this rather hard to believe. How long did this person work in any >such environment. Sorry, but this is my experience after 3.5 years and 1.5 years in open layouts of this nature. I must admit that I never worked in a facility with as many people in the "room" as I have seen at HP, so I cannot say what the long-term impact of so many people in an open layout would be. The largest number of people in such a layout which I experienced was about 40 people. (I did work in a facility where there were more for a short while but the keypunch noise -- that gives you an idea how long ago -- caused others around the DP Dept. to complain so we were "walled in," but things were left open on either side of the walls.) >>I like it better as it is brighter and there is a sense in which everyone has >>a "window." One of our buildings in Piscataway is done with movable (takes >>some effort but no demolition) metal (not at all ugly though) walls which have >>glass at the tops. Thus, natural light does get in to almost all the offices >>to some degree. > >Not much light gets to someone sitting in a cube. I would never know if it >is day or night, raining or sunny, except for the moise on the roof :-) Again, my two experiences with an open architecture were that LOTS of natural light existed. I have seen extra tall cubicle arrangements that try to simu- late private offices and they do cancel out lots of natural light. The two experiences I had were with cubicle walls about 4.5' tall. Lots of light from windows around the sides pervaded the rooms such that overhead lighting was often not even needed on a bright day. >>This is what I think is important. I think there have been studies (apart from >>those done in the computer field) about natural light simulation and its impor- >>tance to many people. People ought to consider that along with privacy since >>the light might be more of a spirit enhancer which may be far more important >>in boosting productivity, attitude, etc. > >Windows are nice. I have had offices on the interior of the floor and those >with windows. However, there are other problems like glare affecting the >surface of your workstation. True...I've always been able to move my workstation around in such situations (including some at Bellcore) even with modular-type furniture. >>On the other hand, I adapt fairly well wherever I work and have never worked >>where the physical conditions were poor. However, I KNOW I work better when >>I have natural light available. In fact, I prefer to work on a sunny day and >>am not motivated much at all when it is dreary out. > there are some people who are not affected as much as others >when it comes to noise. I don't know if this is conditioning or what. >All I know is that I have worked in a variety of situations and having >a room with walls is essential. At least *YOU* may choose when you want >isolation. With cubicals, as many pointed out in the article you are at >the mercy of those around you. This is, to me, the important issue: the element of personal choice. So I actually favor some sort of semi-private (if absolutely private is not feasible due to space/cost) office arrangement to the open one even though I don't mind the latter. I think natural light and the ability to choose the level of noise/privacy is important. Has anyone ever worked where the offices are glass from about midway up all around -- you see this in TV shows sometimes in police offices, etc. I did work in one place (the old DP shop) where they walled my boss off and the two of us who programmed with such a set-up. Again, it never bothered me one way or the other. > As far as the social factor goes, While I have not seen a Bellcore-based survey on this subject, there were some taken at other places I've worked. The "social" aspect showed up in the con- cerns people had about communications between levels of people. Walls and pri- vate offices made it less likely, according to the surveys, for people to con- sider "bothering" someone. That is, people were less inclined to enter a room than a cubicle. Now this may be very good for the raw productivity of the in- dividual. I am just wondering if it hampered informal/impromptu team-building in any way? > how hard >is it for someone to get up and walk into someone else's room to talk? In some of the situations, it seems to have been a slight discouragement. One can say that, therefore, perhaps the issue WASN'T important enough to have bothered another person. Again, I'm not sure, but the surveys taken in these places ranked some communications problems higher where there were closed ar- chitectures vs the open ones. However, the surveys also listed noise factors in the open ones vbs the closed ones. > If >people being is different offices is preventing talking, you have far greater >problems. Using cubes won't solve them. True, but, as I said, the surveys done at these other places highlighted this issue. Now maybe one kind of architecture attracts certain kinds of people and another attracts other kind such that inclination for social mixing is stronger in one than another. Just chaning architectures would not, in any short-term situation, change that at all. I've just never seen studies where some of the details about social interaction were studied along with the indi- vidual privacy and noise issues. Like I said, I've read the studies about this and know the overwhelming evi- dence for the closed architectures when it comes to reduction of various kinds of distractions. But my PERSONAL experience is such that I've noted different kinds of social interactions in the different architectures. (Plus the local survey results which somewhat back this up. I say somewhat since I cannot attest to how the surveys were actually done at the time compared to the study results about noise/distractions.) But since the original request asked for personal opinions about their environ- ment, I felt I'd just add mine since I have been in several settings over the years. Frankly, what I liked mostly about the offices with "real" walls was the space I would get for shelves! I always have a bunch of books, magazines, article files, etc. The open architectures I was in did not have enough shelving as they needed free-standing bookcases. (I assume this has changed with improve- ments in techology for cubicles -- my last two jobs were with private or semi- private offices.) Oh...one more comment. The major problem with the cubicles and distractions -- again, just for me at least -- was that discussions overheard were not WORTH listening in on in many cases. They were often of a more personal than techni- cal nature, so the interruption wasn't worth the time it took. When discussion was on a technical subject, it was -- for me again -- quite often worth it to notice and join in. Electronic forums could help in this regard -- not all people at all companies have this sort of access. However, assuming people were actually talking about work and not just passing the time, some of the distraction element was not, to me, such a problem as it encouraged impromptu exchanges that I valued. >George W. Leach AT&T Paradyne >(uunet|att)!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-133 >Phone: 1-813-530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 >FAX: 1-813-530-8224 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826 Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))