Xref: utzoo comp.cog-eng:391 comp.software-eng:99 comp.edu:789
Path: utzoo!lsuc!sickkids!mark
From: mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.software-eng,comp.edu
Subject: Re: Offices versus Cubicles (LONG)
Message-ID: <82@sickkids.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 88 16:24:00 GMT
References: <2058@pdn.UUCP>
Reply-To: mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt)
Organization: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
Lines: 81
Summary: 

In article <2058@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes:

>       Is anyone aware of any empirical studies or experiments to determine
> the impact upon programmer productivity (or any related field) of providing
> offices with walls and doors and as opposed to cubicals?

>	[ etc. ]

I have nothing in the way of results from objective studies, but my own
experience with both has convinced me that, at least for myself, the two
are totally different universes, insofar as productivity is concerned.

When I accepted my present job, there were a number of extremely positive
factors that more than made up for the fact that the salary offer was the
second-lowest of the ones I could choose from.  One of those factors was
real offices: walls that went from the floor to the ceiling, a window that
you could look out of, and a door that you could shut.  After 4+ years, we
moved across the street into a new building, complete with cubicle-style
offices.  Or, what a friend refers to as the "stalls in a barn" approach
to office accommodation.

Even though the cubicles are pretty high class compared to most barnstall
offices, they're the pits.  Shortly after moving in, this was brought home
when I was on the phone at the same time that the person in the next stall
was also making a call.  I could hear him much more loudly than I could hear
the person I was speaking with, and, conversely, my conversation drowned out
whoever it was that he was talking to.

Things like this, though, pale into insignificance when compared with the
difficulty of concentrating on something that requires some serious thought,
when there are two or three other conversations going on within ten metres
of you.  A real office eliminates this sort of problem.  And it also gives
you the opportunity to shut your door if you don't want to be interrupted
by people dropping by with questions, or whatever.

What has always mystified me, though, is why companies buy these things.
Most of the arguments made on their behalf are clearly spurious:  As an
example, it's often claimed that they're more space-efficient.  Nonsense.
It is true that the average barnstall is smaller than the average office.
However, in our case, much (nearly half) of the floor space is totally
wasted for three reasons:  First, there have to be aisles so that one can
get from the corridor-stallroom door to the stalls themselves.  Secondly,
there is one large stall set aside as a small conference room, which is
needed since nobody has a stall that can accommodate more than two other
people.  Finally, the people with the smaller stalls don't even have room
for a file cabinet, so another chunk of the room is set aside for a sort
of communal file cabinet area.

The way the building is designed, the same space could have been used to
create seven real offices (drywall walls, etc.), with its own door to the
corridor, and its own window.  This wouldn't have been quite enough for
each person to have his/her own office, so a few would have to double up.
But if you were to take a poll as to whether people would prefer to share
a real office with one person, or to have a small stall in a large area
shared with eight other people, there's no question in my mind that the
response would be unanimously for the former.

So, back to the question of *why* do most companies do this to their
people?  The stalls are not cheap.  In fact, the sort we have cost in
the multiple hundreds of dollars per panel, and quite a few panels are
need to make a stall.  And there are nine stalls, plus the tenth one
that serves as a five-person meeting room.  Installing drywall walls,
and putting in a door to each office, and painting the walls, and the
various minor amount of extra electrical work that would have been
needed would have cost far less than the barnstalls did.

I was finally given some insight as to why, by someone from the company
that sold us these things:  Tax reasons.  Apparently, the barnstalls are
considered office furnishings, provided that they are free standing and
don't connect to the ceiling.  And office furniture can be depreciated
quickly.  Not true for money spent putting up drywall.  So, there you
are:  The beancounters strike again.  Sigh.

Actually, since neither I nor the company representative who told me
this are tax experts, perhaps somebody who is could confirm or deny the
truth of this claim.  (Dave Sherman, are you out there?)

				Mark Bartelt
				Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
				416/598-6442
				{utzoo,decvax,ihnp4}!sickkids!mark