"That’s what work is: It is a vacillation between collaboration and solitary exploration."
It's weird that the author notes that, but then proposes that the solution to focusing on one half of the vacillation is to just focus on the other half instead. Surely the ideal is to support both.
If I could I would run an experiment like this:
1. Have a large number of small, quiet office-like spaces.
2. Have a big open plan area.
3. Have a fixed schedule during the day where for a certain number of hours, everyone is required to be in the open plan area.
You can still hack there if you want, but you're expected to be there, and you understand that during that time you're free to interrupt and be interrupted.
The reason for making the open space mandatory is so that people actually go there. If it's optional, then it looks like people only go to the open spaces to not do "real" work. Since no one wants to be seen slacking, the open space just ends up unused.
Perhaps there are greater long-term gains from some collaboration that don't seem as obvious as the immediate gains from "cranking away" in an office alone.
It's weird that the author notes that, but then proposes that the solution to focusing on one half of the vacillation is to just focus on the other half instead. Surely the ideal is to support both.
If I could I would run an experiment like this:
1. Have a large number of small, quiet office-like spaces. 2. Have a big open plan area. 3. Have a fixed schedule during the day where for a certain number of hours, everyone is required to be in the open plan area.
You can still hack there if you want, but you're expected to be there, and you understand that during that time you're free to interrupt and be interrupted.
The reason for making the open space mandatory is so that people actually go there. If it's optional, then it looks like people only go to the open spaces to not do "real" work. Since no one wants to be seen slacking, the open space just ends up unused.