

The Power of “In Person” – Why Distributed Teams are Less Effective - dannyr
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/07/05/the-power-of-in-person-why-distributed-teams-are-less-effective

======
plinkplonk
More blather from the guy who wanted devs to stay on for years in dead end
jobs so people like him wouldn't discriminate against "job hoppers" and when
he got thrashed on HN for that article
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1287110>), wanted to give us advice on
"How to improve civility on HN"
([http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/06/03/some-tips-
to-i...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/06/03/some-tips-to-improve-
the-civility-on-hacker-news/)) which had its own discussion at
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1400882>.

As for the article itself, summary -> "As many of your employees as possible
should be collocated. I have weird preferences on which specific employees
(with specific titles!) can and can't be co located and will fund only
companies which meet those criteria."

Useful nonetheless. Potential founders get fair warning on which VCs to run
from.

~~~
msuster
More accurate summary: author (me) believes that teams that colocate the three
most critical people (CEO, VP Product & CTO) perform much better. I think some
developers can be remote.

~~~
kulkarnic
Some people still think that software is a handicraft industry and you can get
by all the time playing it by the ear. I hope "the author" doesn't believe
that his "weird preferences" are gospel enough to make funding decisions. At
the very least, some background reading into actual research done on this
topic would help.

Start here: <http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/distributed.pdf>

~~~
msuster
I don't have "weird" preferences - just ones that are different from yours. I
don't play it "by ear" - I used to develop software myself and I built and
sold two software companies. I accept other people's arguments and even change
my opinion when they are compelling. You, sir, have made no arguments to the
contrary other than name calling.

------
dannyr
My favorite part - I couldn't agree more.

"The best companies are built on common beliefs and culture – a common sense
of purpose. Those cultural normals are established through human connections:
the night we all stayed late to get that release out the door, the day we
celebrated our funding round or the day we landed our first big account. The
culture is forged through office parties, poker, paintball or film nights. And
slowly, over the years, those crazy stories about Danny passed out in the
company bathroom after the Summer party get replaced by weddings, births and
family picnics. We become more than dispassionate colleagues – we’ve been in
the trenches together and survived."

------
shadowspar
"conventional wisdom says that distributed startup teams can be just as
effective as those that are in person."

You've got to be kidding me. "Conventional wisdom" says that you need to co-
locate everybody from the CEO to the mailroom staff in a big cube farm.

One thing I'll concede -- distributed teams need to work a hell of a lot
harder at communication than co-located teams. You have to explicitly make a
point of saying a lot of the things that practically get conveyed "for free"
when you're in the same physical space.

I completely agree that companies -- teams -- need a shared culture and sense
of purpose to gel. If you're undergoing the startup experience and
communicating with others like they're humans (which you need to do to make
telecommuting work) you'll quickly find you have close friends instead of
coworkers, regardless of the distance between you.

------
rmah
For those that feel a visceral need to disagree with the article, be careful
to not let your own personal preferences overshadow the needs of the group.

While I may quibble with a few details, I believe the author is generally
correct. Over last 20+ years, I have worked with a variety of teams: co-
located, remote and mixed. From what I've seen, when co-located teams mesh
well, they tend to perform the best. I'm not saying remote or mixed teams
can't work well -- they often do. I'm just saying that co-located teams have
the potential to work better and over a longer period of time (because of the
whole culture thing).

------
ankeshk
Some statistics show that left handed people are more creative. Does that mean
you should only buy art from left handed folks?

Thats the argument in the article - central locations are good for
communication and faster work. Hence you should only invest in centrally
located teams.

But good startups can come from distributed work environments too. WordPress
comes to mind.

------
theBobMcCormick
Reminds me of the people who still argue _for_ the old fashioned "butts in
seats" measures of productivity, rather than something more modern like a
Results Oriented Work Environment.

When all is said and done, it shouldn't be about what makes the boss most
comfortable or what "feels" right to management. It should be about _getting
things done_.

------
binspace
One thing that the author does not account for is the cost of the commute. If
the average total daily commute is 1 hour, over 10% of the day is lost to the
commute.

That coupled with the gas (and pollution) necessary to get the workforce from
point A to point B, means there is a heavy tax on our resources and time on
having everybody work in a particular spot.

Collaborative technology is getting better. Many times email (or the next
iteration of communication technology) is better than meetings.

I also personally find I get more done from home than from the office because
it is a more relaxed atmosphere. I can focus and easily pace around (which
helps me think) without bothering anybody. At work, I'm often distracted and
am not as happy (that has got to count for something).

Anyways, I cannot wait to have the freedom to work from a location of my
choice.

~~~
msuster
I'm not against you. I think some developers working remotely can be useful. I
am also OK with any team member working a day or two from home. Finally, from
an environmental point you're absolutely correct. My biggest argument is that
management teams (CEO, VP Products, CTO) who work in remote geographies are
often sub-optimized.

------
c00p3r
Tell that to Google.

~~~
ct4ul4u
Google is of a size that requires distributed teams. It's hard to hire that
many top engineers in one place, particularly given their laser focus on the
top of the talent distribution. They pay a performance tax for having to
distribute, but they get to marshall engineering resources most firms only
dream of. And their culture is very consistent.

~~~
c00p3r
Did you notice that they were developed most powerful code-reviewing tools?
That is an evolution of the pair-programming concept from an ortodox XP. ^_^

------
known
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_to_noise_ratio>

