Comments on: The cost of distraction http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/ A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:25:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: POP! - Productivity on Planes « Tech Evolution In A Wirefree World http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-59005 POP! - Productivity on Planes « Tech Evolution In A Wirefree World Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:59:17 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-59005 [...] From (Saunderslog) [...] [...] From (Saunderslog) [...]

]]> By: POP! - Productivity on Planes « Tech Evolution In A Wirefree World http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-59006 POP! - Productivity on Planes « Tech Evolution In A Wirefree World Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:59:17 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-59006 [...] From (Saunderslog) [...] [...] From (Saunderslog) [...]

]]> By: Jabber’s Filaments Blog » Blog Archive » Interruptions, Interrupters, and the Interrupted http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-57765 Jabber’s Filaments Blog » Blog Archive » Interruptions, Interrupters, and the Interrupted Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:51:42 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-57765 [...] Mike Gotta’s continuation of a discussion on ‘the cost of distraction’, itself a continuing thread from here and here is very salient at Jabber, Inc. [...] [...] Mike Gotta’s continuation of a discussion on ‘the cost of distraction’, itself a continuing thread from here and here is very salient at Jabber, Inc. [...]

]]> By: Not All Interruptions Are Bad -- Alec Saunders .LOG http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-56802 Not All Interruptions Are Bad -- Alec Saunders .LOG Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:45:08 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-56802 [...] Last Saturday I published a rant on The Cost of Distraction.  Maybe it’s that I’m getting older and I can’t multi-task the way a 12 year old can, but I just need my creative time. I can’t produce quality work without being able to shut the world out.  [...] [...] Last Saturday I published a rant on The Cost of Distraction.  Maybe it’s that I’m getting older and I can’t multi-task the way a 12 year old can, but I just need my creative time. I can’t produce quality work without being able to shut the world out.  [...]

]]> By: Craig Roth http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-56600 Craig Roth Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:48:09 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-56600 Interruptions are not always bad. Information workers have such a high degree of attention stress that it's easy to see only the dark side of interruptions, but there is a lot of research pointing to the other side. For example, a UC Irvine study on interruptions quoted one participant who described interruptions relating to his current task as “interactions” and only those that forced him to switch his task were deemed to be “interruptions” I posted an entry on my blog called "Interruptions are Not Necessarily A Bad Thing" (http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/interruptions-are-not-necessarily-a-bad-thing/) where I have an interesting quote from interruptions.net on the pure positive point of view of interruptions: "Many organizations, therefore, purposefully introduce technologies into their workplace that deliver dynamic information and increase the frequency of interruptions. They hypothesize that increasing interruption frequency can increase the volume of useful information available about dynamic activities and consequently improve people’s coordination performance." Also, check out the interruptions.net site for links to more than 500 studies on interruptions (most of which are negative on it of course). Interruptions are not always bad. Information workers have such a high degree of attention stress that it’s easy to see only the dark side of interruptions, but there is a lot of research pointing to the other side. For example, a UC Irvine study on interruptions quoted one participant who described interruptions relating to his current task as “interactions” and only those that forced him to switch his task were deemed to be “interruptions”

I posted an entry on my blog called “Interruptions are Not Necessarily A Bad Thing” (http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/interruptions-are-not-necessarily-a-bad-thing/) where I have an interesting quote from interruptions.net on the pure positive point of view of interruptions:

“Many organizations, therefore, purposefully introduce technologies into their workplace that deliver dynamic information and increase the frequency of interruptions. They hypothesize that increasing interruption frequency can increase the volume of useful information available about dynamic activities and consequently improve people’s coordination performance.”

Also, check out the interruptions.net site for links to more than 500 studies on interruptions (most of which are negative on it of course).

]]> By: Signal to Noise » Alec nails it http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-55834 Signal to Noise » Alec nails it Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:24:02 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-55834 [...] In a piece he referenced that blames instant messaging and so forth for creating a work environment that kills personal productivity, Alec nails a point that is worth reading a few times: Our industry’s business model — the metering of minutes of usage — exacerbates the problem. In an environment where the model is to charge the customer for usage, there is no incentive to help the customer curb usage. [...] [...] In a piece he referenced that blames instant messaging and so forth for creating a work environment that kills personal productivity, Alec nails a point that is worth reading a few times: Our industry’s business model — the metering of minutes of usage — exacerbates the problem. In an environment where the model is to charge the customer for usage, there is no incentive to help the customer curb usage. [...]

]]> By: Mike Gotta http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-55384 Mike Gotta Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:57:54 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/2006/10/28/the-cost-of-distraction/#comment-55384 Alec, I agree with the notion that additional communication channels and pervasive connectivity give rise to significant interruption issues that impact productivity. A focus on attention management is relevant and deserves serious attention by IT strategists. So I am in total agreement on the need to better manage and triage our signal/noise challenges. But on the other hand, what has been missing in the discussion, or so it seems, is a focus on the good side of this (it's not all bad). If someone gets salient insight from me it that is necessary at the moment and it makes them more productive, then we are faced with a value decision. The problem is there is no good method in place to help parties make that value decision. Technology support is rudimentary so we often rely on social contracts between people (it's ok for Jane Doe to bother me because she's on my team but not John Doe because he's in marketing and I know he takes forever to get to the point). What is an interruption to me or to you could be valid, but the information or conversation that results might factor into the closing of a deal on the part of the requestor (or some other net-positive event). If electronic interruptions waste 28 billion man-hours per year in this country, at a cost of $588 billion as Basex points out, what would we think if we discovered that those interruptions resulted in 30 billion man-hours of productivity gain (on the part of those doing the interrupting) and garnered 600 billion in revenue (greater than the costs to those of us being pestered)? I don't have the answer. But we all seem to be going down this interruption-is-bad path when I believe the issue is more complex and involves a lot more than technology. Alec, I agree with the notion that additional communication channels and pervasive connectivity give rise to significant interruption issues that impact productivity. A focus on attention management is relevant and deserves serious attention by IT strategists. So I am in total agreement on the need to better manage and triage our signal/noise challenges.

But on the other hand, what has been missing in the discussion, or so it seems, is a focus on the good side of this (it’s not all bad). If someone gets salient insight from me it that is necessary at the moment and it makes them more productive, then we are faced with a value decision. The problem is there is no good method in place to help parties make that value decision. Technology support is rudimentary so we often rely on social contracts between people (it’s ok for Jane Doe to bother me because she’s on my team but not John Doe because he’s in marketing and I know he takes forever to get to the point).

What is an interruption to me or to you could be valid, but the information or conversation that results might factor into the closing of a deal on the part of the requestor (or some other net-positive event). If electronic interruptions waste 28 billion man-hours per year in this country, at a cost of $588 billion as Basex points out, what would we think if we discovered that those interruptions resulted in 30 billion man-hours of productivity gain (on the part of those doing the interrupting) and garnered 600 billion in revenue (greater than the costs to those of us being pestered)?

I don’t have the answer. But we all seem to be going down this interruption-is-bad path when I believe the issue is more complex and involves a lot more than technology.

]]>