Slashdot Mirror
How IT Increases Productivity
Several readers wrote to tell us about a groundbreaking study reported in Computerworld. Researchers at Boston University and MIT analyzed how IT makes people more productive at an individual level. They gathered more than 125,000 email messages, 5 years of project data, and survey responses to see what factors predicted revenue generation and completed projects. Abstracts for the original articles are available. Among the surprises: IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking; and IT-supported social networks predicted productivity better than experience did.
... given that browsing slashdot is most likely a sign of lacking productivity.
But we found that heavier IT users are much heavier multitaskers, so over time, they're completing more projects and bringing in more money for the firm.
This was a common question given during interviews I took part in during my endless job hunts (I was employed but there's always something better out there). Anyway, every time it was asked I simply replied, "I would expect that nearly everyone in my generation is able to multitask effectively as we've grown up our entire lives with it."
Now, while I'm a little bit outside the "Social Networking Generation", I grew up using computers, watching TV, talking with friends and successfully completing written tasks. This, while completely foreign and thus inappropriate according to my parents, has carried into my work life and made me a very effective worker.
It may be worthwhile studying now only because some of the older individuals in the workforce didn't grow up completely immersed in the same multitasking oriented environment those that are 30 and under have.
In the future it won't be a question, it will be an expectation -- along with more work.
The article doesn't mention what productivity is, or how the study meaured it. Without this, it's difficult to put their findings into context. Is productivity simply getting assigned tasks done? Does it take into account the quality of the output? Does it consider whether people were able to make great leaps in productivity through innovation?
"In the future it won't be a question, it will be an expectation -- along with more work."
Like a candle lit on both ends.
Health Problems Related to the Geek Lifestyle
What Do You Do at Work?
Games As A Multitasking Aid?
Multitasking Harmful To Productivity
My boss and I are a severe contrast as far as the "social networks" part of this article goes. We are both SysAdmins, but he avoids everyone outside IT while I intentionally network all over the place. Naturally, I think my way is better and now there is a study that confirms it!
Seriously, every job I have had has had appallingly poor communications. As a result, I always end up figuring out how to get plugged into the grapevine. If I didn't, I would always be a day late and a dollar short. His logic in avoiding people is that he doesn't like getting called directly when something is broken, as he believes most of the "crises" are minor. I agree with him that we want people to use proper channels (Level 1 support then Level 2 and so on), but very few of them violate protocol more than once in a great while. Frankly, I have found that if they are violating protocol, it's urgent enough that I am glad they are calling me directly. If they fell through the cracks due to an improperly submitted support ticket, things would get really ugly. Guess what, when things are already ugly out there, tickets tend to get submitted improperly.
"When I'm the Boss"(TM) I want to deliberately set up "irregular" communication channels so the imporatnt things are addressed. How about an anonymous suggestion box? What about using an anonymous brainstorming session like I saw at the Thunderbird School of Business back in 1993? Heck, why not have all hands meetings once or twice each year, more frequently at the department level?
Speaking of communication, it is a drag on productivity to the extent that you have to formally track so much of what you are doing. It is a necessary evil, to some extent. At the same time, when I'm trying to figure out if a server is a chronic pain, it helps if there is a trail of tickets to be found naming said dog.
Back to being something of a Social Butterfly at work. Last week, I got invited to an informal luncheon that included the Big Dogs of the corporation. That face time probably didn't hurt me none.
In principio erat Verbum.
Duh.. sure they do. But you don't talk about a "career" in calculators nowadays.
That's what's happening to IT. You don't need a degree to operate a calculator and the user-friendly microsoft operating systems are doing just that : the computer to calculator conversion. IT is only a commodity.
just my $0.02
Horray for job security!!! Finally something to feed those intent on slashing budgets in the name of "fiscal priorities".
I am happy.
No words of wisedom here.
Among the surprises: IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking
So people were able to do more, and yet the projects don't necessarily get completed faster. And this is supposedly an increase in productivity? I don't care if you look busier. I want the job DONE.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You mean is supposed to make people more productive? I thought it was playing games, and reading at work tipping off the boss by having a book /magazine/newspaper visible.
You do know you can't really multitask, right? Any multitasking requires context switching. Any additional task makes you 20% slower and dumber than you'd be if you concentrated at just one task. So I'd rather live in a future that took this into account and at least tried to serialize tasks for individuals somewhat. That's where the next productivity boost will come from.
I for one welcome our new following, who are now welcoming their IT overlords, who would be us.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
"After a few months, I had stripped parts out of most of them, and had 2 of them working. How many teenagers had a pair of 26" TVs in their room? In the late 70's?"
Considering the high voltages used. Maybe the question should have been. How do children survive childhood?
Surely the best way to use IT to increase productivity is to encourage employees to spend lots of time on Slashdot.
Wait, did I say "best"? I meant "worst". My bad.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Among the surprises: IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking
So, they did more, but it still took them the same length of time to do stuff...
*squibble*
Translation: We were still working at the same pace, but we also chatted on IM and viewed pr0n on the company T1.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Hay buddy, thash for yuo to know and me to find out! Wait...thass fer me to find and you to...hey gimme another crown'en'coke buddy.
The most common cause for INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE is a corrupt disk. Run "chkdsk c: /r" from the Recovery Console. Be prepared to wait about 1 minute per used gigabyte of disk space for the operation to complete.
However, if you're experiencing this issue on a consistent basis, I'm guessing you're doing something MS doesn't expect or support, like writing to the NTFS volume from Linux or skipping chkdsk when it detects that it needs to run. NTFS is journaled, but it isn't atomic like ext3. (It's also subject to disk fragmentation.)
Alternately, your hardware is bad, your firmware is out of date, or your drivers are incorrect.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Look at who they're studying:
We looked at white-collar workers -- executive recruiters.
Not office workers in general - executive recruiters are in no way shape or form representative of general office workers. Not groundbreaking and quantity does not equal quality if the basis of the study is limited.
Look at who the sponsors were:
The National Science Foundation, Cisco Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. sponsored their work.
Cisco and Intel have a vested interest in encouraging IT use. The NSF will fund anything that follows their science guidelines.
Look at where it was presented:
at the International Conference on Information Systems, the largest academic IT conference in the world.
That sounds impressive to a non-academic. Until you realize that a large conference means lowest common denominator standards. Academic conferences in general are much easier to publish in than academic journals.
Look at the results:
IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking; and IT-supported social networks predicted productivity better than experience did.
Lovely piece of spin there. IT use was orthogonal to productivity. Phones were regarded as "IT". Face-to-face meetings were implicitly regarded as "IT".
They found that executive recruiters, who have the job of recruiting people, had a higher success rate when they communicated with more people.
Well, duh.
This study is a great example of the sponsors getting the result they payed for: some astroturf to encourage the use of IT technology.
Based on the ComputerWorld article the study itself seems reasonable but is narrowly focused and justifies almost none of the comments being made here about IT increasing the productivity of the average office worker.
---
Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
What a lot of these comments are investigating is *types* of multitasking.
... is five hours. Any inserted tasks will cost the raw insertion time, and double the switch time because of lost partial thoughts. No one can possibly argue that the insertions helped the project.
s 1/test-2007-04-17.txt and then their phone rings, they're cooked.
Consider the Single Person Project: Worker X has to do something which will take approximately five hours at 75% of his capabilities. I consider this the highest sustainable performance level. Optimal completion time
What happened is that someone else wanted a data fragment, and used the authority assistance of the boss. Together they decided that the ability to further their task by acquiring the LynchPin data fragment was more important than the *perceived* loss of time on the Project.
However, a logical fallacy that rewards minimizing the true time cost leads many managers to miscalculate the *cumulative effects* of these interruptions. The first may not be so bad, but seven interruptions later, the Project Performer is likely thoroughly demoaralized, and loses FURTHER productivity.
If worker X doesn't have any 5-hour projects lined up, then all the glorious gains of IT appear because email is an asynchronous communication. Email request for data appears; Begin looking up data fragment; deal with spot-request from Boss; finish looking up data; email answer back.
Email is also far crisper for certain types of data. If you verbally tell someone the log is at Q:/ProgramSuite/Program/BetaDev/Tests/Daily/Serie
However, a phone conversation is better for interchanges in which someone needs serial answers to a complete problem. A solid phone call can get more done in 15 minutes than three days of email.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The position of having to know everything from ethernet wiring to set up websites using LAMP and anything in between is completely ludicrous.
If I don't know how to wire something I will look it up online, even if it is an ehternet connection, it is not like it is hte only one in the universe.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Let me see if I can summarize the article: If you spend all your time talking to people, they tend to respond immediately, so you tend to get the job done quicker, but you'll get fewer jobs done because you're spending all your time talking to people. If you spend all your time emailing people, it takes longer for them to respond. You can spend that time emailing other people, so you can get more jobs done but they take longer. Duh.
were occurring right at that magic age around 25, when we tend to loose that elasticity of brain that allows us to hold more complex logic structures in our heads
No, the brain remains compliant as long as you keep it challenged. Case in point, Chess "Super" GrandMaster Anatoly Karpov recently returned from retirement to participate in a major tournament and actually went un-defeated...besting other "Super" Grandmaster's including Kasparov....Based on that tournament, his estimated ELO would have been over 2900....and many noted that, if anything, he's become stronger.
Many people in the competitive chess world think as you do. That is, if you don't make GM by the age of 20, you never will. I'm about twice that age and just started playing competitively - never really played before but I took the game up primarily to keep my mind active. Good thing I don't subscribe to the theory that I should be "loosing my ability to hold complex logic structures in my head".
For another example, where I currently work I sometimes get asked questions from the younger engineers. One day, one of them asked me how I was able to remember all of this stuff given that I've been out of college so long. I told him that the vast majority of what I learned was after I graduated.
In college, you are forced to apply yourself. After that, you're on your own. It's not age that causes you to lose your mental sharpness, it's atrophy....you lose if you don't use it. If you stay physically active, you remain physically fit, if you stay mentally active, you remain mentally fit.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
This isn't a measure of how IT increases productivity, it's a measure of how productive people operate. If someone is a productive person, they will get in touch with whomever is necessary to get the information or services they need. Non-productive people don't talk to others because they aren't trying to get anything done. I don't think the person's "connectedness" is provided by IT, in fact I'd argue that productive people will seek out any channel to get what they need to get done, IT or otherwise. IT may make productive people a bit more efficient, but it won't take a person who's afraid to contact others and empower them to do so.
stuff |
It does indicate that the workers involved were more connected and communicated far more. So it is possible that while the end project is completed in the same period of time, the increased communication leads to an end project of far superior quality or an end project that more closely meets the expectations of the originator(s) of the project. Both worthwhile goals in my view.
I wonder if this article could help me get a raise? Anyways, I'm glad this study has been done. I have worked at to many companies that look at IT as a necessary evil instead of the highly efficient tool that it can be. Bravo to the researchers!
WTF?
"Ginger, get me Purchasing. We need to order every employee a Segway to improve their productivity. Except for that clown, Pennywise. Have him brought to my office so I can fire him."
"Yes, sir."
"I'm going to get IT right this time."
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?