Slashdot Mirror
Websurfing Damaging U.S. Productivity?
Bert writes "Ars Technica does a good job of debunking a study that claims that American business lose $178 billion a
year to web surfing in the workplace. Particularly alarming is the fact that the study used the beliefs of 350 IT managers to determine how many hours a week the average employee
wastes online. Like the article asks: where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at home?"
> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at
> home?"
Uh...zero. Why would I want to answer work email at home. I don't, nor do I answer phone calls from work on my mobile when I've left work. If they want to arrange paying me to do either, that's fine, but they haven't. I'm suprised this is even an issue.
Good business sense, don't talk your business model down.
> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend
> answer work e-mail at home?
Err probably zero.
How many companies...
1. Bother to set up their email systems so that the employees can use it from home.
2. Then train their employees on how to set it up on their home machine or use the webmail.
3. Have employees which actually DO check their mail from home AND reply even when someone's set it all up for them?
I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.
On the other hand, how many employees surf the web for non work purposes while at work? Probably the vast majority.
Old timer chiming in here - I was working in the days before the internet (or more correctly the world wide web and the common availability of email). You know what? We found time to goof off then too. I think there is a certain amount of time a person is likely to do actual work during the day and a certain amount of time they need to/will goof off - it's just the method of goofing off has changed. Now we surf the web and exchange emails. In the 1980s and earlier people would take coffee breaks, cigarette breaks, read magazines or newspapers, talk to their families and friends on the phone, talk to their cube neighbors, etc. People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensly focused on it. Time spent not working hasnt changed - its just spent differently.
As a distracted youth entering the workplace, I venture to say that I need to surf a bit during the day. I'm not the most focused person, but if I were to develop for 8 hours straight a day, I would certainly lose my mind at a very rapid rate.
I've said this before... when companies mandate unpaid overtime (and i know there are a lot of you out there that are affected by this in one way or another), what do companies expect?
Companies show time and time again that what they care about is "who's at the office?". Not "How smart do they work?" or "How much do they get done?" but simply whether the parking lot is full after 5pm.
Goofing off during those mandatory "overtime" hours is not only a healthy "fuck you" to the establishment but also the only way to slow the burnout rate.
Ah, but what's the burnout of one more "resource" (a wonderful term that is about as slimy as "It's not personal, it's just business") when compared with a better bottom line?
This sig used to be really funny...
$178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace
So, basically what they're saying is that if everyone stopped web-surfing at work, then we'd have enough money to build a space elevator and kick-start a Mars colony. Somehow, those numbers seem a little high to me. But, even if it were true, all the extra cash would most likely go into a bunch of a-holes pockets who would then use it buy another Mercedes or two. So, what was the point of this research again?
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Quote from TFA:
:-)
"IT decision-makers polled believe that employees are spending an average of 5.9 hours per week surfing the internet for non work-related reasons."
IT decision-makers believe this number because:
- they watch the http traffic on their networks (hint: "decision-makers" usually don't know much about technical issues)
- it's based on their personal experience (hint: decision-makers are usually suits with personal offices)
Which one is it in your opinion?
What's more of course, since the quote comes from Websense, it's kind of logical that their employees spend their time surfing the web - to test the Websense web filter - so the "study" might not be very relevant
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Love the word fungible. It means something like "exchangeable for similar things". Web surfing is NON-FUNGIBLE. That means if we were not web-surfing, as a respite from the stress of working with computers, we'd NOT be working, we'd be walking to the vending machines, looking out the window at the girls, or otherwise unwinding from the daily headaches.
I'm posting this during my lunch break.
Then again, I'm salaried. I got here at 7.35am, I'll leave some time this evening. In the meantime I'll be spending several hours constantly flicking to the live internet commentary of the cricket.
Cricket is more important that work.
What I'll also do is meet my commitments. I have meetings to attend, documents to write, deadlines to meet. I'll do all these things. I'm paid to do these things.
If the cricket makes me take longer to write a document, I'll stay a little later to get it finished. Sure, that's impacting on my non-work time - but since I'm letting my personal desire to watch cricket outweigh the need to do work it's a fair exchange.
Is there productivity loss? On an 'output per hour' basis, definitely. But on an 'output per month' basis, there's a productivity gain. By taking a relaxed approach to my job I can sustain my working patterns without getting stressed, killing people, taking time off ill, etc.
More to the point, I get my work done. My employer loves me. Life is good. And I get to watch the cricket.
Or a better question, how much IT productivity is lost trying to find the user who had the problem in the first place. I've had a job sitting in my queue for three weeks now because I can't get the user to take half an hour to actually work out if they got what they wanted. I'd close it out, but I have to give it to another user and they won't tell me which one.
Most American jobs require, at most, 3 to 4 hrs of concerted effort per day. Beyond that, you're just making work for yourself to appear busy and aquire asskissing points.
No doubt. Alas, the term "leverage" has past its expiration date among the likely business types who could have recognized that this is a good example of what they supposedly meant by it. (They're off thinking inside the outside-the-box jargon box now.)
Web access is good for the company and the employee, both -- but pinning it to the bottom line in specific ways is hard, and in an employer's economy like this one it's easy for companies to feel tempted to "crack down." When they can tighten screws, there's an impulse to do it, even at their own long-term expense.
People would sometimes almost rather you waste the time, in ways they can quantify and label as clearly job-related. Especially true in larger corporate worlds where the amount of time you spend(/waste) can be a territorial edge for the managerial sorts in defending their fiefdoms. From three levels up, the time on a spreadsheet that says "Web access" doesn't look good, even when it was.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I am of the firm belief -- having a boss myself and then people under me that I delegate to -- that if someone produces the work I've requested in a timely manner, and that if I in turn produce for my boss, then I really don't care what else that person might be doing during the day. The best work environment is one where there is trust -- as in any human relationship. Whenever a marriage or a work place turns into one of distrust, where one is held accountable for all minutes and hours of the day -- where you were, what you were doing -- then the relationship simply isn't worth keeping. Give people tasks, give them a deadline, and then leave them alone. Take away the web and they'll do crossword puzzles, or do their nails or talk on their cell phones. If nothing else, they'll sit and stare. Someone who will not complete tasks will not complete tasks with or without the Internet. As a matter of fact, that same Internet just might help them do their job....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I even put down "google" skills as a job requirement.
/. , and BOFH should be required reading for any IT job. ;)
Now, sure, I surf at work for fun/pleasure/personal (*Not* that type of pleasure!)
But what about the time I've saved googling faster than a speeding library trip.
Not to mention all the online howtoos and news groups which have "real" solutions to real problems.
-=fshalor
When are people going to realize that more time spent "working" does not mean more productivity. The real measure of productivity is whether or not assigned goals are met on schedule. So which is better, the guy who comes early, stays late and looks like a hard worker but never delivers on his projects, or the gal who seems to be on the web all the time, leaves early, but has the uncanny ability to deliver good work consistently? Which one of these will make the company more profit?
/. knows how easy it is to look like you're working hard, but truly delivering the goods is another matter.
Everyone on
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I don't work in IT, but I know people who do. The only real way to estimate this is by HTTP request logs
/.)
Here's how an IT manager would estimate this:
(proxy log, simplified for
08:22:05 luser onto onto online banking page
08:22:25 luser logs off online banking page (has to click and send an http request)
08:27:05 luser loads cnn
08:27:25 luser clicks on a story on CNN
08:55:03 luser clicks on another story on CNN
Now you could claim that luser was on CNN for 32 minutes. Is it true? Probably not, they probably read a story on CNN, left the browser open, did a whole bunch of work, then went back to the window and clicked another story. There total time "Surfing" is probably 5 minutes, but IT manager will count it as half an hour.
There are also webpages that auto-refresh when you leave the browser open. CNN does it every 15 mintues.
Web surfing doesn't really destroy my productivity. I write software for a living. I work from 9-5 every day. I can't really write code straight from 9-5 with a lunch break. It can't be done. I get most of my work done early in the day, then my rate of work slows down. Every once in awhile while I'm thinking I'll hit the news and other sites. I don't do a lot of e-mail, but I do a lot of IM.
Basically, I do as much work as I can in a day. If there wasn't the web and such to occupy time I would be twiddling thumbs or reading a book in that other time.
If I had a job that was just 9-1 every day I would get the same amount of work done since that time would be solid full productivity work. I would also be much happier with that kind of schedule. But nobody is willing to pay me the same amount to work 9-1 even though the result of my work would be nearly identical to me working 9-5. Four hours every day wasted. Hurts me more than it hurts the company.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
If we're going to count the amount of time I spend thinking about Slashdot at work, how about we count the amount of time I sit thinking about work on my personal time? When I'm working on a project, code is going through my head all the time. I'll be in the shower thinking about an algorithm, or eating dinner trying to figure out where a bug came from. When it gets bad, I'll be trying to get to sleep, but I'll be distracted by code. When I finally do get to sleep, I'll dream about code. I'd like to see a study done about this...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Yeah, it pisses me off that I spend $4/day in gas just to go to work! Never mind the miles I'm putting on my car. It only makes sense to recoup the time=money on /. :)
*flips to next excuse...*
On the one hand, yeah, Internet surfing does waste time at work. Even while doing focused searching for work-related stuff, it is all too easy to become distracted by extraneous stuff that comes up in the search results.
On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times I came up with a unique solution to customer problems because of things that had no company use at the time I found them.
Should I be docked for the fact that I was looking at things that had no company use at the time I was looking at them? Should I then be rewarded (maybe a bonus, HA!) for having knowledge of something that helped solve a problem later on?
As for personal use of company resources, bah! Frequently during the early days of my career and much less frequently now I get involved in deadlines that require overtime. If I cannot use company resources (phone, Internet, on-line banking to pay bills, etc.) to help take care of my business at home while I spend extra hours at the office, then I cannot spend those extra hours at the office!
Companies cannot look at the "cost" of lost employee time due to Internet access without considering the "benefit" of such access in terms of serendipital discoveries, increased efficiencies in doing tasks and flexibility that allows workers to spend more time at work when required.
"Websense, a company that develops web filtering and blocking software for schools and offices, is behind a study that's trumping up the costs of online surfing. First, their claims:"
Most of what we take as news today is actually a press release being used to stimulate business. Of course Websense would see that illicit browsing is up, they want to sell product.
The same has been proven true of the "Year of the Suit" campaign. Turns out that Gentleman's Wearhouse had been cranking out PR's stating that suits were back in, etc.
It's all advertising pretending to be news. The minute you see a specific company name in a supposed news article you know it's a press release.
So it's hype. Don't worry about it.
A better solution then counting hours wasted is for companies to establish incentives that make people want to work. For instance, create relatively small entreprenurial organizations within the company. This allows for both performers and non-performers to be visible. The performers then get CEO type incentives -- stock options, stock grants . CEOs, while not popular on slashdot, tend to work long hours and also focus on the company rather then the keeping under the radar mentality that seems to pervade a lot of workers. Result, both workers and company do well.
"Face time". Look it up.
Companies need _some_ way to track how many hours employees are actually around the office. However, many anagers have taken the additional mental leap of directly associating this with how much their employees actually work.
Hence, the concept of "face time". If you're not in your seat x hours per day, that must mean you're not working and not productive. Take it from there and you'll find a quick explanation for why "studies" such as this one are so widely accepted.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I have only been at my job for a few months. The workload is very patchy, im either really busy for a few days or not doing anything. When I first started I didnt know what to do durring down time. So I just sat at the empty computer, stare at the wall, think about later, dozed off a few times. Now im more comfortable. Nothing like getting paid to read /. , check personal email, catch up on the news I neglect while im at home. Only downfall is I am so bored! Eight hours of surfing wears you down.
I pretty much feel that web surfing does decrease productivity overall.
What makes it so nefarious in my mind isn't the _amount_ of time spent web surfing, but how easy it is for a tiny little brain fart to turn into a web surfing session, and how that time is not the same as a normal break.
Next time you need to think over something before you do it, need a little break, are waiting for something to finish, etc, try talking a little walk and just get away from the computer.
I've found that web surfing tends to so completely lock up my mind that my subconcious problem solving ability is significantly reduced, but if I'm away from the computer, just kinda going 'duuuh', looking at some trees or chillin in a chair looking at the cieling, solutions to problems will often just dawn on me.
Also web surfing doesn't tend to be a very refreshing break, going from working to surfing to working again doesn't stretch you out, doesn't rest your eyes, barely rests your hands, etc.
I see all these unused rec rooms with couches, pool, foosball, etc, everybody is just sitting at their computer surfing or IMing instead of meeting up in those rooms to chill for a second. Heck, even without those, I barely see people hanging out near water coolers or coffee bars.
I think people never do so because they won't look busy, even though surfing/IMing is just as unproductive generally.
If we weren't surfing the web, we would be wasting time doing something else.
How are you supposed to find him and how is he supposed to answer pages when he is 1) underpaid 2) overworked 3) rarely given all the proper tools for the job 4) constantly ignored when his input could greatly influence (and possibly save) a decision 5) probably fixing one of the other coworkers spyware/virus/adware infected computers from playing fantasy games and going to crappy sites using ie all day long?
"It's incumbent upon the manager to make sure that the employee's day is filled with work, and to fire employees who just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they're being paid to work ALL OF THE TIME, not just some fraction of it."
First, are you seriously suggesting that people work through every lunch hour or break? Second, do you really think people are productive at creative tasks if they don't have any mental "down time" during the day? Third, your way of "thinking" will lead to workers doing the absolute minimum needed, giving you absolutely zero respect, no loyalty to the company, and will absolutely not work a single extra moment, or do anything to improve the company. That is the sort of workplace your attitude would create.
I'll bet you measure productivity by lines coded per hour, too.
No, a manager's job is to tell the employee what is expected of them, give them the materials and tools they need to get the job done, and to stay the hell out of their way unless the employee needs help. A good manager acts as a buffer between their department and the rest of the company, balancing tasks and abilities, and helping their employees to grow and develop.
That's what a good manager does...
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith