Multi-Tasking Leads to Lower Productivity
- queueing theory: part 1
- On Queueing, Oil Change, and Customer Experience
- Queueing Theory: Part 4
- On Time-Traps and Waste
- queueing theory: part 2+
- Queueing Theory: Part 3
- Little’s Law for Product Development
- Psychology of Queueing & Build-A-Bear Workshop
- Travel Time & Waste
- Call Centers as Queueing Systems
- What is Waste?
- YouTube’s Queueing Properties
- Queueing Theory and Terrorism
- Queueing, Disneyland, and FastPass
- Psychology of Queueing & Disneyland
- Multi-Tasking Leads to Lower Productivity
- Queueing Psychology at the Gas Pump
- On Queueing and Elevator Mirrors
- The Variability Tree
- Attitude and the Pyschology of Queueing
- Emergency Room (ER) Wait Times
- Staring at Acoustic Ceiling Tiles
There is a predisposition for firms and people to think that multi-tasking is heroic, leads to more productive employees and, is generally, becoming more and more the accepted norm in business. All of this would be nice, except that multi-tasking actually leads to lower productivity and lower morale.
To belabor my point, here is a recent job posting I found on monster by doing a search on “multi-tasking”:
Medical Claims Coordinator: Showcase your Multi-Tasking Skills!
The above is the title for a job posting for a large insurer.
Learning from Little’s Law
Queueing Theory leads to a fundamental theorem, called Little’s Law: for a queueing system in steady state, the average length of the queue is equivalent to the average arrival rate multiplied by the average waiting time. in other words,
L = λW
Put another way,
Throughput = (WIP / CT)
Where WIP is Work-in-Process and CT is Cycle Time.
What the equation above means, then, is that as we reduce WIP, we can increase Throughput; or, as we reduce Cycle Time, we can also increase Throughput. Or, we can simultaneously reduce WIP and reduce Cycle Time, with a combined effect of higher throughput.
A common result for multi-taskers is that simultaneous projects or items are spawned. Multi-threaded is sometimes the analogy here. But, unlike machines, people have a difficult time completing multi-threaded processes. The end result is that projects and efforts are not complete, time runs shorter and shorter, and demands continue to pile up. Think of everything I’ve just described as Work-in-Process (WIP). So, using Little’s Law above, as WIP grows, then Throughput decreases.
Translation: As we multi-task, we start several projects, complete only a few, WIP grows, Cycle Time eventually lengthens, and we are less productive.
Join the above statement with the fact that as we multi-task, then return to an old task, there is a learning curve involved in getting acquainted again with the context. This can sometimes lead to confusion, lower morale, and dismay for some people. This is especially true for software, wherein an engineer is engaged in code, but is pulled to do something else. To re-engage requires time, thought, and a lot of effort. This ultimately leads to frustration and poses significant risk to the software project not completing by the required date.
A Proposed Solution
I’m not advocating that we only do one thing at a time — although in some industries, that is ideal and necessary. Some situations require that we do some things simultaneously. I propose that the number of items that a person seeks to start is of the right batch size, control WIP, and keep an eye of the Cycle Time from end-to-end for each item started. Also guard against more items entering the queue, by placing them in a buffer, staging area, for prioritization and triage. Once treated in the buffer and a project has left the queue, then pull from the buffer the prioritized item. Common sense, but not common practice — to be sure.
Conclusion
Multi-tasking and its many flavors, such as Task-switching, the near-neighbor of multi-tasking, leads to a similar effect of lower productivity and it impacts morale. Multi-tasking leads to higher WIP, longer and longer Cycle Times, which both lead to lower throughput or productivity, and that impacts morale and the performance of the firm. To control this, I propose implementing a system that enforces the right number of projects to be worked on at a single time and a procedure for treating new projects as they enter a queue. All the while, keeping an eye out for the Cycle Time of completion of projects and also amount in the queue.
As already mentioned: my proposal is a common sense solution; but, it’s not common practice.
This post is part of a series on Queueing Theory. Other articles can be found here:
- Queueing Theory: Part 1
- Queueing Theory: Part 2
- Queueing Theory: Part 3
- Queueing Theory: Part 4
- What is Waste?
- On Time-Traps and Waste
- Call Centers as Queueing Systems
- Travel Time & Waste
- Little’s Law for Product Development
- YouTube’s Queueing Properties
- Psychology of Queueing and Disneyland
- Queueing, Disneyland, and FastPass
- Multi-Tasking Leads to Lower Productivity
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Good stuff! We see this everywhere including in personal time. How many times have you held a conversation with someone who is simultaneously working on their e-mail? The end result is that neither task gets completed as well as it should.
james
I currently own the domain name multitaskingsucks.com
I am just getting started but wondered if you would be interested in advertising on my new site.
Please let me know if you would have any interest.
Gary Patton
Your math doesn’t work at all. You’re making a great point, but this equation just doesn’t work:
Throughput = (WIP / CT)
since the math means that increasing WIP would *increase* throughput given a constant cycle time. Maybe you meant CT / WIP , where CT is time to complete 1 work unit and WIP is in work units?
The rest of the article implies that the concepts of WIP and CT are interrelated; taking that in to account would definitely help the explanation.
@Jack,
You’re intuition is spot-on. These are equivalent, in fact:
(WIP=CT×TP) == (TP=WIP/CT)
The bok “Factory Physics” explains this much, much better than I have.
Thanks for stopping by.
[...] multi-task – when you mult-task you tend to switch between what you should be doing and what you shouldn’t. By single tasking you [...]
[...] An interface is humane if it is responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties. We make mistakes. No matter how hard we try to concentrate and prevent errors, errors will happen when our concentration wanes or when we are forced to do something that is beyond our cognitive abilities like multi-tasking: the act of consciously thinking about two things at once — and, with the use of Queueing Theory & Little’s Law, we learn that multi-tasking leads to lower productivity. [...]
[...] multi-task – when you mult-task you tend to switch between what you should be doing and what you shouldn’t. By single tasking you [...]
what you have not considered is that certain human brains are desired primarily for multitasking/multithreaded concentration. adhd if the clinical term we typically use for these sorts of people. so to design a system around a common human weakness is only going to reduce the productivity of people who are stronger at multi tasking than singletasking.
it’s something you should at least consider.
[...] Without any solid evidence ore support, I have a tendency to lean toward the complexity of web sites as a contributing factor to ever shorter attention spans. It has also been shown that people who are multitasking perform each task less efficiently than if they had focused on a single task through completion. [...]
Leave a comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
You say: multi-tasking actually leads to lower productivity and lower morale. I made this exact point on one for my blogs here: http://tinyurl.com/28j94q.
The main leanring point is what Deming called Consistency of Purpose – focus until the task in had is complete. Here is a great example of a lack of this concept in action (http://pages.citebite.com/p1f4c8e1b9bxu):
I’ve never seen a company with the lack of consistency of purpose as Ford, Mulally told reporters. He stirred up buzz by visiting Toyota, seeking not so much to do business with the company as to learn something more about how the car industry works. “Consistency of purpose” might be the most cogent three-word explanation of what’s behind Toyota’s success. From the top execs down to the guys sweeping factory floors, everyone there knows the mission is to serve its customers.
Rob