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.

Funny article to post on slashdot...

... given that browsing slashdot is most likely a sign of lacking productivity.

Re:Funny article to post on slashdot...

Actually, having the free time to browse Slashdot is the result of being so productive! :)

New Generation of Multitaskers

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.

New Generation of Articles.

"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 [slashdot.org]

What Do You Do at Work? [slashdot.org]

Games As A Multitasking Aid? [slashdot.org]

Multitasking Harmful To Productivity [slashdot.org]

Re:New Generation of Multitaskers

Some of us that are 40 and under (and I imagine 45 and under) grew up building this tech and are very effective multitaskers to level of competence that this 25 and under (Generation nexters) aren't able to comprehend.

I can rewire a home for phone service. I imagine that most ./ers can too. I understood how the telephone worked at around 10 years old and was hacking calls with just a speaker and 2 wires ripped from a taple player to call my friends when I had no phone in my room, only a jack. There was a time when I memorized all the Bell codes (in my area) for redial, dictate phone number, delay dial, etc... all before this caller ID crap.

My nephew is 17. I had him accompany me to rewire my mother's condo for 2 lines of phone service. The telco only wired one jack and put a splitter on it.
I was rather shocked when he stood in amazement watching me remove the plate from the wall and rewire the wires. Up to that point, the phone is simplay just a magic box that communicates to another magic box (phone) to him.
Something so simple that you can pulse dial with a speaker and 2 wires and get a connection for simple communication was such a mystery to him that I had to rethink what todays youth is into. He can turn on a cell phone, IM, use all the features but if you ask him how many volts his cell phone battery supplies, he's quite lost.

These Generation Nexters will be able to multitask with the tech presented to them but how many will know how to fix the tech?

Re:New Generation of Multitaskers

Here here. As one of these "Generation Nexters" at 18, I'm completely competent in the use of computers and tech in general. When people need help with computers in my hall, they come to me. However, beyond the basics of "Ethernet cable goes into this port here, that connects to that, etc." and doing some slightly more detailed software stuff (being a compsci undergrad), I'm at a total loss. My current opinion is "If I want to rewire a phone, I'll look it up online." There's so much free information out there that's easily accessible, I think I'd rather be a flexible multitasker who, most importantly, learns fast and can follow even meagre instructions sensibly.

It's a different way of thinking. If you want to know the voltage of my cellphone battery, I'll take off the cover, flip it out and tell you. If it's not printed on the battery, I'll look it up. If that's no use, I'm sure I've got a voltmeter somewhere around here...

Re:New Generation of Multitaskers

These Generation Nexters will be able to multitask with the tech presented to them but how many will know how to fix the tech?.

I was born in 1982.

My grandfather knew how build a house (he built his own, my family's summer house, etc). I don't. Will that be a problem for me? No.

Society is moving forward the same way software development is. Thirty years ago I would probably need a decent understanding of the way a microprocessor works internally in order to complete the most mundane computing task. Today I've got languages and frameworks which abstracts the basic (boring?) stuff so I can focus on business logic.

In society today, constructing a house involves so much (building laws, energy saving, technology) that would make difficult and unneccessary (if not impossible) for me to learn just to have a house built.

Leave it to the experts.

Re:New Generation of Multitaskers

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.

I have to echo one of my fellow responders...you don't multi-task better because you grew up around computers, you multi-task better because you are young. I graduated high school in 91, and so my early computer/tv/phone/gf sessions 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 - a task which happens to require lots of task switching. It is a very strange sensation to feel yourself...get dumber.

I don't see myself as less capable now than I was then, larger because experience more than makes up for the lost skill. However, I'm not nearly as capable of switching between disparate tasks as I was back then. Perhaps it is not worth studying yet - the first internet generation is in their 20's. In ten years, we may know a whole lot more.

Whoa there, buddy

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.

What, exactly, is productivty?

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?

It's the people, stupid

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.

Re:It's the people, stupid

You remind me of almost every villain the BOFH has ever conquered.

Re:It's the people, stupid

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.

Excellent! Maybe you can get transferred away and your boss can actually get some work done.

Do calculators increase productivity?

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!

Horray for job security!!! Finally something to feed those intent on slashing budgets in the name of "fiscal priorities".
I am happy.

Is it just me?

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.

Is it supposed to do that?

how IT makes people more productive

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.

I for one...

I for one welcome our new following, who are now welcoming their IT overlords, who would be us.

Obvious

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.

So what you really mean....

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.

Marginal study at best

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

Summary

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.

Sounds backwards to me

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.

Raises for IT?

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!

Dean Kamen's IT?

...IT makes people more productive at an individual level.... 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.

"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."

Re:Good or Bad?

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.

Re:Good or Bad?

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.

Re:Multitasking horribly prone to abuse

What a lot of these comments are investigating is *types* of multitasking.

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 ... 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.

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/Series 1/test-2007-04-17.txt and then their phone rings, they're cooked.

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.