|
The Myth of Multi-Tasking
These days, we often hear the term "multi-tasking" in a human context, but it originates in computer processing. Back in the day, when CPUs were big and expensive and peripheral devices were slow, it was a terrible
waste to let the processor sit idle while waiting for input. Multi-tasking systems could swap a new task into memory when appropriate, and keep the computer humming along as close to full-time as
possible. Even here, though, it's important to realize that the computer is still doing only one thing at a time, it's just shifting its attention from one task to another. Machines are good at
that.
When people tell you they're multitasking, they usually mean they're getting a lot done. ("Look at me, Ma, I'm multi-tasking!") They're reading email and listening to a conference
call and chatting away on IM. But just like the computer, they're still doing only one thing at a time. They may be technically executing on multiple tasks, but each of those tasks is getting only
a fraction of their attention. For humans, what multi-tasking really means is doing a lot of things in a sub-optimum way, instead of doing one thing well.
Does it matter? It might. A recent study of 1,000 British teenagers blamed the prevalence of gadgetry in the bedroom for the problem of "junk sleep." In the study, 23% regularly nodded off with devices still running, and some were only sleeping four hours a night. That's not good for the health. It may even be linked to obesity, since sleep deprivation leads to a craving for the energy found in sweet and starchy foods. Maybe some day, multi-tasking will be like smoking cigarettes. We may still do it, but we won't be proud about it.
An Offer You Can't Refuse?
Knowledge Street Associate Don Riemer works in video, as a writer, producer and/or director, depending on what the occasion demands. Last month, he was directing a piece that called for an on-location scene in a typical New Jersey diner, and was having a hard time finding the right location. In fact, he was at the point of rewriting the scene for a corporate cafeteria, when a colleague gave him a tip. It was about a place where he'd been a regular for many years -- Pappy's Diner, in Totowa. The friend made the call, and for him, they were happy to oblige.
The scene went off as planned, and on location, Don learned this diner had said "No" to the location scouts from The Sopranos. Not once, not twice, but four times, including the
famous final episode for which they would have been paid $20,000 a day. Don had to ask why. "Those people...those TV people," he was told, "they come in here with their laptops and their
brief cases and their cell phones... They show us no respect! Forget them!"
In real life, there are very few offers people can't refuse. Treat 'em with respect!
The Cost of a Cubicle
When cubicles started to appear in the workplace, they were generally sold to management as a
cost-saving measure. The idea was that space could be used efficiently, reconfigured quickly and thereby adjust to a changing workforce. Selling the idea to the employees required a different pitch, and
here the word was collaboration. In an open-plan office, everyone gets a degree of privacy, but also has easy access to each other. The problem is that one person's access is another person's
interruption.
We came across an interesting essay about the economics of the cube farm. The author suggests that while cubes may be cheaper from a facilities management point of view, they can have a negative impact on performance. In cubes, knowledge workers experience higher interruption rates, which increase the time required to perform complex tasks and may even lead to errors and rework.
It's often said that a critical challenge for KM is the difficulty of measuring its benefits with traditional accounting. We might be seeing the same thing in the near-universal proliferation of
the cubicle, since the productivity cost of cube-farm environments will never show up on a balance sheet.
Facebook & KM
In late August, there was an interesting segment about this social networking site on public radio. If you haven't been paying attention here, Facebook, like its predecessors MySpace and Friendster,
aims to connect its users to other users, who are known as "friends" in Facebook parlance. It offers tools for file sharing, publishing photos, building networks and so forth. In a recent survey, nearly half the companies polled have implemented mechanisms to restrict
Facebook access in the workplace, believing that it's a productivity killer and a threat to security.
Not everyone feels that way though. You can build a private network within the Facebook
platform, and at least one firm has adopted it as a company directory. Its employees use Facebook pages to publish their contact information, bios and areas of expertise. Since the network is private,
only its own members have access to the information. To be on the safe side, they don't publish sensitive material this way.
This is a pretty interesting development. In Intellectual Capital, Thomas A. Stewart suggested a corporate yellow pages as a starter project for a KM program. By using Facebook as the platform, you could get the technology for free, and focus on the real challenge: getting people engaged with the idea.
Unsubscribe | Change your profile
|
