Popular Advice

I like this question Wendy, thanks for posting it.  Having worked in both isolated and open office set ups I have been able to observe the differences and the strengths and weaknesses of both set ups to a small extent.  Like most personnel related business topics there are so many dependencies on the type of company and type of business conducted.  It works for some but not so much for others.  In reference to open plan offices removing the perceived hierarchies in an organisation, this needs to be explained in more detail.  It doesn’t remove the sense of hierarchy per se it more eliminates the faction between managers/supervisors and their subordinates as well as creating a better understanding and connectivity for leaders to their team and greater accessibility from team members to the leader/mentor.  Take the latest CEO of the National Australia Bank Cameron Clyne, giving up the traditional 35th story CEO’s office to a 3rd story at another location to sit amongst the domestic operations executives to be closer to the front line of the business.

If the notion of reconnecting with the needs of the customer is considered in this instance, consideration of the work duties will assist in determining the affectivity of an open office plan.  While the above example at the NAB might not be moving from an isolated CEO’s office to an open plan set up it does show that moving closer to your front line or working amongst the team shows a more relevant sense of customer needs and an opportunity for influential leadership.  From the article that Wendy referenced in her question, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University study concluded that irritating noise came from ringing phones, conversations and machines.  Headsets, compartmentalising positions that require autonomous duties and a machine room (assuming this relates to printers, photocopiers etc.).  It is easy to come up with problems but these studies should identify a problem and then pursue outcomes or problem reduction plans, after all these articles often come from researchers not political parties trying to persuade a point of view.

We enhance technology by developing user friendly interface, so this in collaboration with the open plan office concept can be tailored to the requirements of the customer, the employee.  Find an acoustician or better yet a student studying acoustics and sound design and invite them to utilise your workplace for a study.  Have them identify the acoustics of the office and identify cost effective ways the office can be modified to absorb the spoken voice in individual cubicles and isolated in team/conference rooms.  This reduces the disruption of voice pollution while maintaining the sense of team environment, connectivity and lower set up costs.  Many of the researchers against the open plan office case talk about the poor consideration of office set up.

Open plan offices are fine and have many positive attributes.  Do they need more planning and consideration, yes.  Creative business administration is on the rise and this topic can be tackled with the right mix of ingredients of research, planning and design.

Risk can not be completely eliminated. It can only be mitigated. As entrepreneurs we should be hyper-aware that risk is a constant as well as a variable. Consider that without risk there is no need to be an entrepreneur, but being an entrepreneur carries its own risks.

This is truly a loaded question. Steven diversification above and he is correct, but that needs to be seen in more detail (I'll circle back on this below).

Richard you have made some interesting suggestions, but they have risk as well. Take Intellectual Property, sure there is a reasonable expectation on return, but consider the cost to achieve the IP, just because you've secured IP doesn't mean it creates a product people want or need. Even if it leads to a product people want, it won't last indefinitely. The same is true of writing and selling a book. What if you spend all that time and money creating the book and no one buys it? What if the book sells well for a while, is that rate of sales sustainable? There is still risk involved.

Diversification is the only way to truly minimize risk. I speak of true diversification, not in the sense of a Monetary Portfolio. This is what successful diversification looks like to me:

The primary job is consulting. This leads to an offshoot of paid speaking engagements. The added visibility leads to writing and selling a book (while still consulting and doing speaking engagements). The book surfaces the opportunity to do training workshops (helping others gain your skills not applying your skills to clients, but still doing all of the above). The added projects have brought additional revenue. You decide to invest your extra revenue. You split your investments across Stocks, Bonds and Cash. You continue doing all of the above and decide you want to buy part or all of a related business but leave them to operate on your own. Now that you have all that going you realize you don't have as much time to do all of the above, so you cut back on training and open up an e-commerce store to sell whitepapers, training guides (CDs/DVDs) and other related material.

This could continue on and on. The idea is that you are truly diversified. Sell services, digital products, physical products and be in different industries and verticals so that lows in one market are offset by another.

I will say it again, risk can not be eliminated. It can only be minimized. The biggest risk is not taking any. Life is always changing so you must plan to adapt constantly.