mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) (01/21/88)
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
sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) (01/21/88)
In article <82@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: > .... stuff about how cubicles are a bummer ... > > ... 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. I've found that a *Walkman* can really help in an office-cubicle context. It does so by first removing the noise of conversations around you; it helps cut out the whine of printers and the hum of other machinery too. I also find that it helps to deter people from interrupting you. They can't just walk into your area talking as they go, inadvertantly interrupting you while you are in the middle of a stream of thought. You don't have to have the thing loud or anything, you can set it to a volume which removes surrounding noise but still allows you to hear your phone. It gives you an isolated feeling even when you are in the middle of a room full of "stalls". If you find you can't work with *music* on or if you are stuck in the deep city, you can get some of those *nature* tapes - y'know, birdies singin' and the trickle of a babbling brook, or the waves pounding the shoreline and the haunting cry of shithawks ... Also highly recommended for urban transit during rush hour ... Try it you'll like it ... :-) Sigrid
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/22/88)
I hate the cubicles too, but I know why people put them up: a) You get natural light to everybody. Sunlight is often at a premium in most spaces, and it's nice to have. Everybody would rather have a private office with window, but many people would rather a cubicle over a private office with no window. b) They are portable and movable. For a company on the go, getting expensive cubicles can cost more than walls, THE FIRST TIME, but after you move, they go with you rather than being the property of the landlord, and if your company changes, you can change them. c) No need to install special ventalation, or have electricians put in power. These things have the power already in them. So they are cheaper, even the expensive kind, and that explains why the companies that make them charge so much. Finally, while I don't agree, some people think the open office is more productive as it encourages team sprit, accessabilty and cooperation. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (01/22/88)
>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. Also the legal beagles. By very old English law, and thence into the laws of most English speaking countries, walls etc. are leasehold improvements that become the property of the owner. Since most office space is rented, installing walls requires extra investment by the owner (e.g. higher rents) or a pseudo-gift by the renter. When a company moves, the stalls can also be taken while the walls stay with the building. -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA (Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)
msir@ur-tut.UUCP (Mark Sirota) (01/23/88)
In article <1330@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > Finally, while I don't agree, some people think the open office is more > productive as it encourages team sprit, accessabilty and cooperation. I have worked in several office situations: Fully open, with 5 programmers at various desks in various orientations all near windows; divided offices, with 5 or 6 foot walls, each of us with our own phone, desk, file cabinet, etc.; and enclosed offices, either one or two people per office, some with windows, some without. I personally don't work very well in a secluded area. I prefered two people in an enclosed office to a cubical with 6 foot walls, but the best of all possible worlds would be several workers in a fully open area, where they can discuss, joke, and otherwise have fun. When you're in an office on your own, all you can do is work, which is only sometimes fun. And with separate offices, someone's gonna end up with the worst one, no matter how you slice it. And then he's (she's) unhappy all alone. Of course, it's very helpful to have other noise sources (such as printers) in an enclosed room somewhere so that the area is quiet when nobody's talking. Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic, but I believe people work best in a cooperative environment, and walls of any size or type only serve to destroy cooperation. -- Mark Sirota msir%tut.cc.rochester.edu@cs.rochester.edu (rochester!ur-tut!msir)
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (01/23/88)
In article <861@ur-tut.UUCP> msir@ur-tut.UUCP (Mark Sirota) writes: >Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic, but I believe people work best in a >cooperative environment, and walls of any size or type only serve to >destroy cooperation. I leave my door open (at least when I am willing to `entertain visitors', as it were). -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
rob@amadeus.UUCP (01/24/88)
Brad Templeton writes: >I hate the cubicles too, but I know why people put them up: > >a) You get natural light to everybody. Sunlight is often at a premium in most > spaces, and it's nice to have. Everybody would rather have a private office > with window, but many people would rather a cubicle over a private office > with no window. You have obviously never worked in a LARGE building. --- Dan Tilque This is a borrowed account, so be sure to indicate that replies are for me and not for Rob.
tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) (01/24/88)
In article <2150@geac.UUCP> sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) writes: >In article <82@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >> >.... stuff about how cubicles are a bummer ... >> >> ... 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. > >I've found that a *Walkman* can really help in an office-cubicle context. >It does so by first removing the noise of conversations around you...[]; Yes. But a real problem for those of us who work in bad environments (I have an office -- shared among 4 people!) is that you just can't listen to music, white noise, or the sounds of the surf for 8-10 hours each and every working day. If man was made to wear headphones, his ears would have been shaped differently! Another problem that I have found is the kind of work you are doing. I have done many kinds of work, including coding and tech. writing. I find that I can write code (any language) very well while listening to music (just about any kind), but cannot write coherent English while listening to music (even purely instrumental music). I don't know if this is a purely idiosyncratic foible, or is widespread. Any comments? -- Tim Smith INTERNET: tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax!gryphon!tsmith rutgers!marque!gryphon!tsmith codas!ddsw1!gryphon!tsmith
kers@otter.HP.COM (Christopher Dollin) (01/25/88)
Offices re Cubicles: I'e worked in two office styles: shared offices [3+ people] (5 years) and cubicle ensembles [3 years]. I'm happy in cubicles; at least here, I have enough room. I have not suffered from items going walkies and the worst noise distraction here is the local British Areospace flightstrip, or heavy Bristolian rain on the roof. Be shut in an OFFICE? No distractions? No finger on the pulse? PS Management have cubicles too ............................................. Regards, Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?"
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/25/88)
In article <2150@geac.UUCP> sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) writes: >I've found that a *Walkman* can really help in an office-cubicle context. >It does so by first removing the noise of conversations around you; it >helps cut out the whine of printers and the hum of other machinery too. >I also find that it helps to deter people from interrupting you. They can't >just walk into your area talking as they go, inadvertantly interrupting >you while you are in the middle of a stream of thought. This type of solution worked for me when I was a kid in high school. I could drown out the other sounds in the house by playing my stereo while I did my homework or studied. However, this is *NOT* the ideal environment. It is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. I'm sure that many people who work in environments where there are cubicals have experienced people using walkmans. In fact, some people here have small speakers in their cubes! The problem is that unless everyone has them, then those that do not will suffer even further. You can hear the music from the walkmans in surrounding cubes. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/25/88)
In article <861@ur-tut.UUCP> msir@tut.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) writes: >Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic, but I believe people work best in a >cooperative environment, and walls of any size or type only serve to >destroy cooperation. Nonsense! Cooperation is not a function of how many people you stuff into a single room. Lack of cooperation is due to other factors, like personality conflicts. When you have several people grouped into a single room, all it takes is one LOUD and annoying person to reduce the productivity of everyone. I have been in just about every kind of configuration you can think of (we almost had to use bunk desks at one time :-) ), including rooms with one roommate, several, and none. I have been in several types of cubicals with varying numbers of people. The ideal environment is an office with four walls and a door! As for the argument about windows, for those who do not have windows you compensate in other ways, eg. larger office or different pieces of office furniture. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
fad@think.COM (franklin a davis) (01/25/88)
In article <861@ur-tut.UUCP> msir@tut.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) writes: >In article <1330@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> Finally, while I don't agree, some people think the open office is more >> productive as it encourages team sprit, accessabilty and cooperation. > >I personally don't work very well in a secluded area. I prefered two >people in an enclosed office to a cubical with 6 foot walls, but the best >of all possible worlds would be several workers in a fully open area, >where they can discuss, joke, and otherwise have fun. When you're in an >office on your own, all you can do is work, which is only sometimes fun. >And with separate offices, someone's gonna end up with the worst one, no >matter how you slice it. And then he's (she's) unhappy all alone. I vote with you! My productivity recently went up when I joined the other three members of my project in a large, fairly quiet room with lots of windows. We can solve little problems immediately, and have fun, two things cubes and private offices don't provide so easily. Of course, I'd prefer offices to cubes. Interestingly, though, I spent last week at a customer site, and the cube environment had one unusual feature: it was quiet! They had thick carpet, accoustic ceiling tiles, sound-absorbent cube panels, and very wide aisles between blocks of cubes. All in a huge room. It was incredibly quiet compared to what I'm used to -- but I found it sterile, cold, numbing. You can't win...:-) --Franklin
tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) (01/26/88)
I have also worked in both situations, and am currently quite please working in by own office. I CAN NOT STAND the florescent light used in large rooms, and much prefer the privacy of having your own office. (I always just use the lamps in my office). :------------------------------------------------------------: : Tom Carstensen Usenet: tomc@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM : : Mentor Graphics GEnie: XPC23637 : : : : . . . and this shall be Max Headroom's finest hour. : : - Max Headroom : :------------------------------------------------------------:
bobr@zeus.TEK.COM (Robert Reed) (01/26/88)
In article <1330@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
c) No need to install special ventalation, or have electricians put in
power. These things have the power already in them.
The ventilation problem I can understand, but even with coops, electricians
have to install power busses at our offices. The fact is that the 15 amp
service usually provided in the cubes is insufficient for powering
workstations, graphics terminals, etc., so after the cubes are installed (or
reinstalled) in an area, the electricians come by to hang 1x3 conduit and
wire up services to provide specialized connections and power.
--
Robert Reed, Tektronix CAE Systems Division, bobr@zeus.TEKmsellers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Sellers) (01/26/88)
In article <3038@zeus.TEK.COM>, rob@amadeus.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: > Brad Templeton writes: >>I hate the cubicles too, but I know why people put them up: >> >>a) You get natural light to everybody. Sunlight is often at a premium in most >> spaces, and it's nice to have. Everybody would rather have a private office >> with window, but many people would rather a cubicle over a private office >> with no window. > > You have obviously never worked in a LARGE building. > Dan Tilque [on an account borrowed from Rob] No kidding! I worked for about two years in a biiig warehouse-like building that had been converted into "office space" (Tektronix Wilsonville, for those of you who know it). This building was nearly one big open space with a drop ceiling. If you stood on your chair, you could see across the building, with a maze-like floor plan made up of these little cubicles. My first week there I must have gotten lost half-a-dozen times (talk about feeling like a rat in a maze :-) ). Then there was the added noise from conversations in neighboring cubes, smoke from people smoking nearby, etc. I was near a bank of windows, and rarely got any "natural light" -- I can only imagine what it must be like for people five minutes walk from the edge of the building. At my present job I have a private office (without a window, though that may change), and I consider it to be one of the better benefits of the job. I would *much* rather have a door to shut, room to pace more than two steps in any direction, space for two desks, bookshelves and a whiteboard, and still not have a window than have a "window seat" in the land of cubes again. I think the cubes approach must save the company money in terms of the facilities, but at least from my experience, it probably costs them dearly (and perhaps invisibly) in terms of engineering productivity. -- Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers Mentor Graphics Corp., EPAD msellers@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM "The goal of AI is to take the meaningful and make it meaningless." -- An AI prof, referring to LISP
raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (01/27/88)
In article <861@ur-tut.UUCP> msir@tut.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) writes: > >Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic, but I believe people work best in a >cooperative environment, and walls of any size or type only serve to >destroy cooperation. After many years of cooperative work in various environments, I believe the physical surroundings have little effect on ability to cooperate productively. The tools that count most are . . . 1. Feet. If everyone is within, say, 30 seconds walking distance of each other it's EASY to make the minds meet. 2. Network (& local) electronic mail. This easily extends communication ability (e.g., allows saving "memos") in a local group, as well as in a larger group. 3. Shared access to files. Once done mainly via shared access to a common mainframe and by FTP, networking facilities now make it easy to work collaboratively from separate workstations or separate hosts. 4. Telephones. Second best to feet in facilitating "high bandwidth" communication. 5. Minimal organizational complexity, appropriate meeting planning (neither too seldom nor too often, including the right people, ...)... Excess management is one of the biggest productivity wasters I've seen. Cubicle environment DO carry a productivity penalty, no matter whether the work is individual or cooperative. My prefernce is the private office environment with good sets of these tools. --------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu
rice@Data-IO.COM (Ken Rice) (01/27/88)
While I'm sure that no one who reads this group is guilty of it, I'll add the fact that someone listening to a Walkman(TM) can be VERY disruptive to other people nearby if they are doing it rudely. That means (amoung other things): listening at loud volumes that leak noise (music, whatever) out into the surroundings, whistling along with their music, and tapping fingers-feet-pencils to the tune. Also, it can be difficult and awkward to attract the attention of someone who's listening to earphones. I had two situations that I remember from the past year. In one, I tapped a friend on the shoulder and her instinctive reaction was to turn and take a swing at me. She missed me and bashed a file cabinet with her fist--then swore at me in a foreign language for 20 minutes. I forgot what I wanted to talk to her about. The other time was on a weekend when not many people were around. I scared another friend out of her shorts and she cried for 20 minutes--then she kicked me. Damn this is a tough place to work! Ken Rice
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (01/27/88)
In article <82@sickkids.UUCP>, mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: > 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. Well, offices the size of your stalls, with walls up to the ceiling, would be pretty claustrophobic. Your other points are reasonable, though. > 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. Are you sure? Have you priced contractors' work recently? The costs of commercial electrical, construction, painting, etc. are astronomical. (It cost the Law Society over $100,000 to renovate a single classroom recently.) Also, if the company moves, the stall dividers can usually be taken with them. > 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?) Yo. (Thank sq!msb for referring this to me, actually.) Office furniture is usually written off at 20% declining balance, but if it's devoted to R&D it may be possible to write it off fully in the year it's acquired. (I've just glanced at the Income Tax Act and Regulations provisions on this; a definitive answer would require more extensive research and discussion as to the exact nature of the expenses and the activities carried on.) Renovations would normally be leashold improvements, which can often be written off over 5 years straight-line. So yes, there may be tax advantages. In your case, Mark, that may not be definitive. The hospital doesn't pay tax. And the research corporation it owns would only be paying tax if it's profitable. > Mark Bartelt > Hospital for Sick Children > Toronto David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
dwd@sfsup.UUCP (D.W.Dougherty) (01/27/88)
I'd really like to know what this discussion (offices vs. cubicles) has to do with education!! Could the conversation be taken elsewhere? PLEASE??!??
sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (01/28/88)
Due to cost, I think the choice for most employees most companies is not between offices or cubicles. It's between a maze of cubicles or a sea of desks. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG ihnp4!meccts!datapg!sewilco Data Progress C and UNIX consulting +1 612-825-2607 Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid. The alert question everything anyway.
bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (01/28/88)
In article <2150@geac.UUCP> sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) writes: >I've found that a *Walkman* can really help in an office-cubicle context. Not much use if you work in a secure environment, where any kind of personal electronic equipment is forbidden. To easy to hide bugs I guess. I've been told that around here they use white noise generators to mask the background babble. It seems to work. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say.
mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) (01/29/88)
In article <1988Jan27.092204.22702@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) writes: > In article <82@sickkids.UUCP>, mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >> 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. > Well, offices the size of your stalls, with walls up to the ceiling, > would be pretty claustrophobic. Your other points are reasonable, > though. That statement is true, but irrelevant. (Your *first* statement, regarding claustrophobia; not the one about my other points being reasonable!:-) There was never any suggestion that there would ever BE cubicle-sized offices with floor-to-ceiling walls. In my original posting, I went on to describe how nearly half the floor space is wasted on such things as access paths to the stalls, a small meeting room that would not be needed if people had offices of a decent size, and so forth. In fact, if the area had been divided into seven real offices, all but one would have a window (I hereby correct a misstatement in my previous posting, in which I claimed that all seven would have windows), and each office would be a bit over 12 square metres in size. Not huge, certainly, but identical in size, as it turns out, to the real offices that we had in our old building. What's more, they'd actually "feel" a bit roomier, since the old offices lost approximately one square metre to an essentially useless and inconveniently placed closet. Alternatively, we could have had six offices, each with its own window, of more than 14 square metres -- a nice roomy office by anyone's standards (well, maybe not management and marketing people:-). It is true, as I said before, that with six or seven offices, about half of us would have had a private office, while the others would have had to double up. But a 12 square metre office can be shared quite comfortably by two people; we did so in our old building, and nobody seemed particularly unhappy. At least, everyone preferred it to the situation we have now. By the way, not that I'm going to point any fingers (how could I, after all, having posted two long diatribes to this discussion?), but the "Newsgroups:" line says ... Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.software-eng,comp.edu Haven't we gotten a bit off the topics of "cognitive engineering", "software engineering", and "computer science education"? If people aren't already bored to death with this discussion, maybe we should move it to someplace else, such as misc.jobs.misc, eh?
chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (01/29/88)
In article <820@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> rice@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Ken Rice) writes: >In one, I tapped a friend on the shoulder and her instinctive reaction was >to turn and take a swing at me. [...] The other time was on a weekend >when not many people were around. I scared another friend out of her shorts >and she cried for 20 minutes--then she kicked me. Seems like you should quit working for the SAS. :-) -- Chip Salzenberg UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip" A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret. "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (02/01/88)
I'm tired of reading about cubicles. The people who make that decision
are doing the best that they can. The people who design the software
(us!) are doing the best that they can.
Most likely, the people who chose cubicles for their company are on average
just as good at their job as the software folk are at theirs.
Everybody please get back to work 8-) doing what you do best. The US is
somewhat short of productivity these days.
lee
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (02/02/88)
In article <31577UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >I'm tired of reading about cubicles. But the issue of how software is produced includes the issue of how people actually do the work. It's all not just abstractions, as some posters imply. > .... The people who make that decision >are doing the best that they can. The people who design the software >(us!) are doing the best that they can. > >Most likely, the people who chose cubicles for their company are on average >just as good at their job as the software folk are at theirs. > But between these two sets of people, there is almost always a difference in knowledge, culture, and motivational systems. Most software producers are laborers (as opposed to managers). Most cubicle-specifiers are managerial, or work directly with management. In at least profit-oriented concerns, the motivation of management is develop value as fast as possible at the least cost*. This motivation may lead to a certain amount of short-sightedness. It is easy to see that cubicles cost less, but the cost of the detriment to technician productivity is harder to measure and easy to forget or pass off with handwaving. >Everybody please get back to work 8-) doing what you do best. The US is >somewhat short of productivity these days. > lee > A lot of the literature I read on the productivity issue implies that the problem is generally located with management. Managers need the kind of information the original poster was trying to develop in order to manage better. From time to time I manage projects, and I find the political-managerial-environmental problems often more difficult to solve, and more costly, than the technical problems. [* I pass over the question of productivity management versus marketing.]
al@gtx.com (0732) (02/04/88)
In article <31577UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: ->I'm tired of reading about cubicles. The people who make that decision ->are doing the best that they can. The people who design the software ->(us!) are doing the best that they can. -> ->Most likely, the people who chose cubicles for their company are on average ->just as good at their job as the software folk are at theirs. -> ->Everybody please get back to work 8-) doing what you do best. The US is ->somewhat short of productivity these days. -> lee What is this? Don't suggest improvements because your manager knows what's best for you? With that kind of thinking we'll never improve productivity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 2501 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,amdahl}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
nate@cpocd2.UUCP (Nathan Hess) (02/05/88)
In article <2260@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes: >I find that I can write code (any language) very well while listening >to music (just about any kind), but cannot write coherent English while >listening to music (even purely instrumental music). I don't know if >this is a purely idiosyncratic foible, or is widespread. Any comments? The same is true for me. I can also do math, chemistry, physics, etc. while listening to music, (including reading texts involving any combination of these subjects) but I can't write *or* read literary papers, poetry, etc. in the presense of music. So it's still probably an idiosyncratic foible, but you're not the only one in the world who displays it, Tim. :-)# Cheers, --woodstock -- "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?" ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!nate <domainish> : nate@cpocd2.intel.com ATT : (602) 961-2037
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (02/07/88)
In article <2701@sfsup.UUCP> dwd@/guest2/dwdUUCP (45421-D.W.Dougherty) writes: >I'd really like to know what this discussion (offices vs. cubicles) has >to do with education!! Could the conversation be taken elsewhere? >PLEASE??!?? It may not have a lot to do with education, but it says some revealing things about working conditions. One of the very clear issues in the world of computer systems is the necessity for building user interfaces which allow users to feel comfortable using an application. We cannot build interfaces which fit this bill unless we have some understanding of what makes people comfortable as they work. Although the current discussion of physical work space has not yet moved across to a discussion of metaphorical workspaces, much of what has already been said is germane to such a discussion. Characteristics of the work- stations of the '90s (at least those which will see widespread commercial use) are what is available now. The technology is visible now, and is epitomized by HDTV-equivalent physical displays, X, NeWS, the Mac toolkit, and the OS/2 Presentation Manager. What we build with these tools is the issue. It is not clear that what has been built with such tools thus far in any way represents a satisfactory, or even an acceptable, approach to providing a comfortable electronic working environment. Robert_S -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4