Talk:Open plan

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is becoming pretty messy and filled with unsourced opinions and dogma. Since I started it, I suggest a major clean-up and reorganization into the following sections:

• History and Background
• Types of Open Plans
• Arguments in Favor of Open Plan
• Arguments Against Open Plan

Unsourced claims will be removed and references put into standard Wikipedia form. OK? Newell Post (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is with the "remaining offices" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.238.94 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed it. -- pne (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pne. There is far more dogma/smoke/mirrors in regard to this whole subject than actual science. Most of the dogma/smoke/mirrors in favor of open plan was made up by furniture companies that sell cubicles. It caught on more because it was cheap, easy, and flexible than collaborative or any of that stuff.Newell Post (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. The whole idea is bullshit. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling it bullshit just because you don't agree with a generally held belief. Where is the proof that it is bullshit? This is a verified statement. Where is the proof that it is wrong? You can't go around deleting information just because you don't believe it. 46.208.196.16 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is bullshit because the idea is, well, bullshit. I have never found anyone (other than bean counters or upper management who themselves have private offices) that finds a vast space filled with cubicles or worse open desks a good place to work. I've continuously fought for private office space for 30 years and always found that I was happier and more productive when out of the noise and distraction of "open plan" office space. The only reason that companies go this route is that it is a lot cheaper than providing decent offices for workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.188 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits section consists of a number of unreferenced and, too me, far from obvious statements. It reads as if taken from a brochure advocating open plan, rather than an encyclopedic discussion. Michael Eriksson (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section fails to discuss the negative impact on creativity. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The noise level in open-plan offices greatly reduces productivity, which drops to one third relative to what it would be in quiet rooms." So, what, if a team finished a project in 3 months in an open plan setting, they'd have done it in one month had they had their own rooms? What a silly unquantifiable statement. 2001:14BA:1FE:DD00:E197:C429:13C2:3E37 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'‘Work environments that are more open create more opportunities for observing and learning from those with more experience and different skills.’
- from "Offices that Work" by Franklin Becker PhD and William Sims PhD: Cornell University: International Workplace Studies Program http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu

This appears to be a myth. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling it a myth just because you don't agree with a generally held belief. Where is the proof that it is a myth? This is a verified statement. Where is the proof that it is wrong? You can't go around deleting information just because you don't believe it. 46.208.196.16 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218071604/http://www.news.qut.edu.au:80/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID=23175 to http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID=23175

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

]

Neutrality

This article presents results from recent small-scale studies as if they are settled and conclusive knowledge. For example, the the second paragraph of the article says "moving from cubicles to open workspaces...actually results in dramatically fewer face-to-face interactions among staff and reduced productivity" --- but the source is a 2 year old study that studied two workplaces. I suggest softening the language here and elsewhere "some studies have suggested" etc. 24.4.5.5 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have fixed the issue and resolved the tone, thank you. Pink Saffron (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]