I tend to enjoy the open plan. Our team has currently voluntarily moved to an open space within an otherwise cubicle-dominated workplace to facilitate better communication within the team. I can see issues with this layout when multiple teams are involved or team sizes are large, but I really like it for our small team (and I'd like to think the rest of the team would agree). I also feel like there definitely needs to be "individual spaces" where you can go and be not interrupted for a while, which we currently do not have. A flexible work schedule would probably do just as well.
Maybe it depends on the team and the personality types in it?
"Maybe it depends on the team and the personality types in it?"
That's exactly the case. Different people have different preferences. And if you have an inflexible work environment of a particular type, your company is losing access to all the talented people who hate that particular environment -- you're, in effect, making something like the ability to work in a noisy space a more important hiring criterion than the ability to write good code. (Maybe this is one of the reasons that companies feel there's a shortage of developers?)
The best approach might be to offer a choice to employees rather than having rigid policies like "everybody has to collaborate on a minute-by-minute basis in an open space", or "managers get offices and everyone else gets cubicles". Giving employees control over their individual working environments would go a long way toward making them feel valued by the company, even more than giving them free food.
That is not open plan, that is a team room. It's extremely distracting when 10 people are having a conversation around you, half the time with passionate, loud voices.
Aren't you attacking the wrong thing here? The expectation is performance, not necessarily brilliance. I'm personally tired of the perception that performance is even correlated with hours worked, let alone causative.
Would an API be defined as "A set of functions that define the available operations common to that set?" If so, would those functions then delegate to progressively more concrete functions that work against data structures to perform their duties? I suppose it's obvious where I'm going here. I don't see how this is any different from just saying the word "Object."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off too sarcastic here. I'm actually quite interested in challenging the OO norm that is obviously too easily accepted right now.
Maybe it depends on the team and the personality types in it?