"In simple terms, the pilot teams produced double the number of function points per staff month from the previous baseline for the company. The time to market (cycle time) dropped to almost 1/3 as compared to the company baseline, and even lower than that produced by the industry as a whole. Both these results are statistically significant at p<.001 using z scores against the single baseline number."

Analysis
The definition of radical collocation is a bit of a misnomer. While the team did most of its work in a collocated space, they had options to disengage from the shared space and retreat to a private space when required - primarily for personal discussions and working solo (typically coding) - two tasks identified as not ideal for a shared space. They also indicated the need for headphones to "tune out" the distractions in the room as well as a larger space to provide more space within the shared space.

With this analysis you might think that I am against collocation. Quite the opposite. My personal experiences have shown me similar results in team productivity as well as increased quality - something this paper did not address. However, creating AND MAINTAINING a highly-productive shared space environment is a very personal intrusion on a person's (primarily American) sense of privacy and independence and requires a sensitive touch. It requires Change Management.

As this paper indicated, but somewhat skirmishly, is that providing a highly-productive shared team environment requires more than just a big room. It requires planning. It requires networking and communications infrastructure. It requires more space that traditional cubical farms. And it must be "owned" by the teams. The more this initiative is run top-down, the more likely it is to backfire - especially given that the ones driving it are most likely enjoying their corner office with a view. All aspects of that long obsolete "Change Management" discipline in Organizational Development.

Recommendation
First and foremost, recognize what your current cubical farm environments are doing to enable individualism, issolationism, detachment, unproductive protectionism, and a false sense of productivity.

Secondly, experiment with some collocated team environments and create your own case studies. You can hand out this literature and tell them the benefits until your blue in the face, but until your teams experience it first hand, they will not "own" it.

Third, actually allow them to own it and don't balk at the costs required to acheive a sustainable productive environment including cubical reconfiguration, office upgrades and restructuring, and other communication and networking suggestions. These are simply organizational impediments and you are standing in their way toward productivity. Those costs are peanuts compared to the return on investment in  empowered, enabled and interaction-based teams that truely innovate new solutions to drive your business.

Feedback
So, do your experiences differ? If so, I want to hear them.