Feng shui is all very well, but the next time you decide to redesign the layout of your office space you might consider calling an economist. That's because an astonishing new set of data from Google – where else? – has allowed economists to track something that had been utterly ethereal: the flow of information around a physical office space.

    The data come from Google's trials of something called an internal prediction market. Prediction markets are most famously used to forecast presidential elections. If Barack Obama is trading at 35 cents on the Democratic nomination market, that is what punters are willing to pay for a ticket that will pay a dollar if and only if he wins the nomination. In that case the market is giving Obama a 35 per cent chance.

    Prediction markets aren't perfect, but they often beat alternative forecasting mechanisms. That is why some companies have started to experiment with them by asking their own employees to bet on sales and revenue figures – the alternative being to rely on the bureaucracy's own forecasts, which are often made by people with a vested interest in sitting on bad news.

    Google is not the first to try: according to Bo Cowgill, of Google's economics group, and academic economists Eric Zitzewitz and Justin Wolfers, other pioneers include ArcelorMittal, Chrysler, Eli Lilly, General Electric and Hewlett Packard.

    The markets seem to work quite well. But that is not the most interesting thing to emerge from the analysis by Cowgill and his co-authors. By looking at which Google employees trade in which markets (betting on, for instance, how many users Google's Gmail service will attract by the end of the quarter) and on which side of the trade, they have a good idea about who has what information. And by looking at who else makes similar trades, they can draw conclusions about who has similar information at similar times.

    If this was an ordinary company, the researchers might try to correlate information with the organisation chart, and that would be about all there was to say. But this is Google. Cowgill, Zitzewitz and Wolfers had the precise GPS location of each desk (Google offices are open-plan). They had information about which employees were on the same e-mail listings, such as the poker group. From a survey, they had a list of each employee's friends. They knew which bosses they worked for, which projects they worked on, and where they went to college. All they lacked were the names of the employees, which were stripped out of the database.

    The results were striking. Clear correlations existed between the trading behaviour of certain groups of employees. But they were not explained by shared interests or by social connections. Having the same immediate boss only explains a little about information flows.

    No, it is the office layout that matters: people who sit near each other tend to know the same things, as evidenced by making similar trades on the prediction markets. Social and professional proximity matters very little for the flow of information: physical proximity is almost everything.

    Specialists in organisational behaviour have known for a while that people tend to interact much more with those who sit nearby, but it has never been clear whether that was just social grooming. Now we know that real information is flowing.

    We keep being told that because of cheap, ubiquitous communication technology, distance is dead. But if there was ever a company that we should expect to exemplify that idea, surely it was Google. This research suggests that it is as important as ever to be sitting in the right place.

    風(fēng)水固然重要，但下次當(dāng)你決定重新設(shè)計(jì)辦公室布局的時(shí)候，你或許會(huì)考慮請(qǐng)個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。這因?yàn)椋�有一組令人驚異的新數(shù)據(jù)已經(jīng)問(wèn)世，能讓經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家追蹤某種曾經(jīng)完全像空氣一樣的東西：信息在辦公室物理空間的流動(dòng)。這一組數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)自谷歌(Google)——不然還能是哪兒呢？

    該數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)自谷歌所謂的“內(nèi)部預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)”試驗(yàn)。預(yù)測(cè)總統(tǒng)大選是“預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)”最有名的應(yīng)用。如果巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)在民主黨提名市場(chǎng)上的交易價(jià)是35美分，那就是說(shuō)，賭客們?cè)敢獬?5美分購(gòu)買(mǎi)一份相應(yīng)合約，當(dāng)且僅當(dāng)奧巴馬贏得提名時(shí)，賭客們將憑借該合約而贏得1美元。在這種情況下，市場(chǎng)對(duì)奧巴馬獲得提名機(jī)會(huì)的預(yù)測(cè)就是35%。

    預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)并非十全十美，但它們通常比其它預(yù)測(cè)方法更可信。因此，一些公司開(kāi)始試行這一市場(chǎng)，要求自家員工對(duì)銷(xiāo)售和收入下注，作為公司管理部門(mén)自身預(yù)測(cè)之外的另一種選擇。因?yàn)樵诠芾聿块T(mén)中，做預(yù)測(cè)的人通常會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)壞消息，因?yàn)檫@樣符合他的既得利益。

    谷歌不是第一個(gè)吃螃蟹者。根據(jù)谷歌經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家團(tuán)隊(duì)中的博•考吉爾(Bo Cowgill)和學(xué)院派經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家埃里克•茲特維茨(Eric Zitzewitz)、賈斯汀•沃爾弗斯(Justin Wolfers)的說(shuō)法，其它率先開(kāi)展此類(lèi)試驗(yàn)的企業(yè)還包括阿塞洛-米塔爾(ArcelorMittal)、克萊斯勒(Chrysler)、禮來(lái)公司(Eli Lilly)、通用電氣(GE)和惠普(HP)等。

    預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)似乎運(yùn)行得非常良好。但這并不是考吉爾和他的合作者得出的最令人感興趣的結(jié)論。通過(guò)觀察谷歌員工在哪些市場(chǎng)交易哪些內(nèi)容（比如猜測(cè)截至某個(gè)季度末Gmail服務(wù)將吸引多少用戶），以及在交易中是買(mǎi)還是賣(mài)，考吉爾等人就很清楚哪些員工擁有哪些信息。而且，通過(guò)觀察還有其他哪些人進(jìn)行了類(lèi)似的交易，三位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家就能知道哪些人在類(lèi)似時(shí)間擁有類(lèi)似信息。

    如果這是一家普通的公司，研究人員可能會(huì)將這些信息與組織結(jié)構(gòu)圖聯(lián)系起來(lái)進(jìn)行分析，那么結(jié)論可能會(huì)是一些老生常談的東西。但這里是谷歌。考吉爾、茲特維茨和沃爾弗斯精確了解每一位員工的座位（谷歌的辦公室是開(kāi)放式結(jié)構(gòu)）。他們知道哪些員工屬于同一個(gè)電子郵件聯(lián)系群——比如一起玩撲克的群體。通過(guò)調(diào)查，他們獲得了每個(gè)雇員的朋友名單。他們知道這些雇員為哪些上司工作，在哪些項(xiàng)目中做事，以及在哪里上的大學(xué)等。三位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家唯一缺少的信息就是這些員工的姓名，因?yàn)槟且呀?jīng)被數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)刪除了。

    分析結(jié)果引人矚目。特定群體中的雇員在交易行為方面有著顯著的相關(guān)性。但它們無(wú)法用共同興趣或社會(huì)關(guān)系來(lái)解釋。擁有同樣的直接上司也只是信息流的小部分原因。

    原來(lái)，辦公室布局才是關(guān)鍵所在：座位接近的人往往知道同樣的事情，在預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行同樣的交易證明了這一點(diǎn)。社會(huì)關(guān)系和專(zhuān)業(yè)接近對(duì)于信息流動(dòng)作用非常有限：有形空間的接近幾乎是唯一原因。

    組織行為學(xué)家目前已經(jīng)知道，人們往往和那些坐在自己附近的人互動(dòng)得更多，但他們從來(lái)不清楚這是否只是一種社交需要。現(xiàn)在我們知道了：真實(shí)的信息正在流動(dòng)。

    人們一直告訴我們，由于廉價(jià)且無(wú)處不在的信息技術(shù)，距離已經(jīng)死亡。但是，如果我們期待有一個(gè)公司去證明這一說(shuō)法，那這個(gè)公司顯然就是谷歌。這一研究表明，坐在合適的位置上，還是和以往一樣重要。