SPUG: Results of Work Space Survey
dancerboy at strangelight.com
Mon Nov 19 21:42:18 CST 2001
At 12:50 PM -0800 11/19/01, Jim Flanagan wrote:
>--On Monday, November 19, 2001 2:08 PM -0500 "Michael R. Wolf"
><MichaelRunningWolf at att.net> wrote:
> > I use white boards, stickeys, colored markers, and lots of
> > other visuals to help solve a problem. A standard desk doesn't let
> > me work. I get into a "thrashing" problem where I spend more time
> > reshuffling my papers than I do putting work into the code.
> > Any thoughts on that front?
> I think the main issue is that not all spaces are appropriate for all
> types of work,
Or for all types of workers: what's optimal for one person may not be
optimal for another, even if the two people are doing the same type
For example: I'm very easily distracted by conversations and other
activities going on near me. I think the bullpen environment you
describe wouldn't work very well for me -- I mean, I could find ways
to *make* it work (a discman, noise-cancelling headphones, and a
stack of good ambient CDs comes to mind) but it would not be ideal.
This raises all sorts of interesting cost/benefit problems, in terms
of trying to accommodate the different work-styles of a diverse group
of developers; and more general questions of just how diverse a
development team should be, ideally. There are obvious advantages to
having a development team made up of people who all have similar
work-styles: it's easier to set up all the different aspects of the
development effort -- from the physical layout of the office to
general procedures and guidelines -- in a way that works well for
everyone, and the more similar people are, in general, the more
easily and efficiently they can communicate with one another. OTOH,
there are significant problems with having an overly-homogenous team
as well: it can be especially difficult in such a situation to "think
outside of the box", and it's extremely easy for a group of very
similar people to develop collective blind-spots.
> There are offices and
> closed meeting rooms, but they don't "belong" to anyone. You can check
> them out for short periods, or pop into an unoccupied one for private
> phone conversations.
One potential advantage to this that intrigues me is that one could
probably equip a "collective" office much more lavishly than would be
practical with most private offices. E.g. there was some talk on
this thread about the importance of physical desk space. For me, I
would gladly trade physical desk space for screen real-estate. I
think I waste much more time shuffling the windows and icons on my
desktop than I do shuffling physical objects. I just recently got a
second monitor for my home office, and not only do I believe that
this has made a huge improvement in my productivity, but I don't
think I've even come close to maxing out the improvements that
increased screen real-estate *could* make. I think I could have 4 or
5 monitors on my desk before I started seeing diminishing returns.
But I'm guessing that, at most companies, it might be difficult to
justify equipping each developer with a 5-monitor workstation...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
POST TO: spug-list at pm.org PROBLEMS: owner-spug-list at pm.org
Subscriptions; Email to majordomo at pm.org: ACTION LIST EMAIL
Replace ACTION by subscribe or unsubscribe, EMAIL by your Email-address
For daily traffic, use spug-list for LIST ; for weekly, spug-list-digest
Seattle Perl Users Group (SPUG) Home Page: http://zipcon.net/spug/
More information about the spug-list