More Is Not Always Better

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.brighthand.com/article/More_Is_Not_Better' target='_blank'>http://www.brighthand.com/article/M...e_Is_Not_Better</a><br /><br /></div>Ted Ladd, a Brighthand columnist, has written an excellent article on the issue of efficiency and how it relates to our use of PDAs. It gave me a few things to think about as I stare at my task list...<br /><br />"The term "efficiency" has been abused through over-use. In its most general form, efficiency is defined as the number of results produced in a given period of time. Given this definition, efficiency is not necessarily improved by multi-tasking, connection, and even interaction. As many professionals have discovered, we do not usually produce more simply by having more conversations, attending more meetings, or reading more emails."

[JonnoB]

Sometimes single-tasking is more efficient. For example, I work from home 1-2 days a week just to get things done. I am less interrupted. Sure, I can multi-task well, but to start/stop/start/stop/start/stop decreases efficiency.

Now, apply this situation to a PDA - I would rather be capable of multi-tasking than not. With respect to my analogy, while I may be more productive at times at home single-tasking... I have no problem either at the office or at home having background music. My brain can at least multi-task that much... and I am glad my PDA can too.

[mookie123]

How can he categorize effectiveness and efficiency differently?
I thought the definition of efficiency is "effective try divided by time (or any other resource)". Being effective is by definition being efficient while considering resource used.

[Rirath]

In my experience, however, the most pernicious result of my increased communications with colleagues and customers is the dramatic explosion of my task list. It seems that I leave every meeting with ten more things to do. Every email I receive requires that I write two more. At one point, my list of To Dos was over 200 items long!

Someone tell this guy to download a Fish Screensaver or something and chill out.

[Jimmy Dodd]

How can he categorize effectiveness and efficiency differently?
I thought the definition of efficiency is "effective try divided by time (or any other resource)". Being effective is by definition being efficient while considering resource used.

Efficiency is getting things done in a timely manner.

Effectiveness is getting the right things done in a timely manner.

The difference is at the heart of prioritization in the Franklin Covey system.

[Jimmy Dodd]

Sometimes single-tasking is more efficient. For example, I work from home 1-2 days a week just to get things done. I am less interrupted. Sure, I can multi-task well, but to start/stop/start/stop/start/stop decreases efficiency.

Now, apply this situation to a PDA - I would rather be capable of multi-tasking than not. With respect to my analogy, while I may be more productive at times at home single-tasking... I have no problem either at the office or at home having background music. My brain can at least multi-task that much... and I am glad my PDA can too.

In computing and in life, multi-tasking is a positive thing as long as the time-slice allocated to each task in its turn is significantly greater than the time required to change tasks (overhead). The point at which the processor has so many tasks assigned to it that the time slices have become so short that the only thing accomplished is the overhead is called thrashing. In effect, the memory for accomplishing a task is moved into place only to be moved out again to make room for the next task.

Applied to humans, this often manifests itself as a day in which you spend the whole day laying out the tools needed for accomplishing a task (find a file, open an application, drag out your notes) only to receive a email/phone call telling you to work on something else instead. Once you prepare for the new task you again receive a phone call/email, and so on.

The reason multi-tasking can be effective on the computer is that the speed of a computer is such that much of its time is spent waiting on the operator (or waiting on slow operations, such as network access, disk access, etc.). If I'm writing a Word document my PC is spending a lot of time waiting in between my keystrokes. During this time it can check for email updates, recalculate a spreadsheet in the background, and run a number of other tasks without my notice.

Learning to multi-task without thrashing is a fine art for humans which my PDA helps immensely. Instead of reading every email as it arrives at my desk I let them automatically sync to my PDA. Then while standing over the department printer waiting for a print job to complete or while waiting on a meeting to begin I can check them. While standing in checkout line at the mall I can note purchases from the previous store in MS Money.

The art of multi-tasking for humans lies not in doing a lot of things at once, it is in learning to fill up dead time with things that are important to you. Microsoft's new ad campaign with it's tag line "what would you do if you had five minutes" (or something like that) is aimed directly at this.

[mookie123]

Efficiency is getting things done in a timely manner.

Effectiveness is getting the right things done in a timely manner.

The difference is at the heart of prioritization in the Franklin Covey system.

You are assigning new meaning to a well established words just to fit your idea.
------------------
American Herritage dictionary:

Effective.
Dictionary:
1. adjective: 1.Having an intended or expected effect
2. producing or design to produce the desired impression or response

Efficient:
2.Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

---------------------
-Even if things are getting done in timely manner, it is NOT necessarily efficient, it has to be correctly done (ie. effectively) in timely manner (if time is the resourced measured)

-Something can be effective, even at very slow rate or even untimely manner, as long as the task is accomplished as intended. If time is not necessarily the only criteria, than it's effective.

-------
Note:
-call me beligerent, but franklin Covey is bunch of hacks, the company doesn't even make profit for gawd sake, so much for being efficient company. (Interesting to note how they obfuscate meanings of words as a heart of their business.)

-Efficiency can be measured mathematically. so if you don't produce data, you are only making weak anecdotal musing. That's why algorithmic pathways are often analyzed statistically to measured it's efficiency without resorting to anecdotes.

-Using word's meaning correctly will create effective use of language, and prevent vague meanings floating arounds which makes reader confused. (ie. not efficient) so that brighthand article is NOT effective, let alone efficient in conveying ideas. It's just a personal RANT, and pretty uneffective at that too.

[Jimmy Dodd]

You are assigning new meaning to a well established words just to fit your idea.

Hardly. My dictionary does not include the word "effectively" in its definition of efficient.

Regardless of your dictionary, the usage of the words is well defined in both the article and in Covey's book. I don't see how that could be construed as trying to confuse a reader by "obfuscating" the meaning of words. Instead, they go out of their way to make sure that the reader knows that in their context the two words, which have a very similar meaning and which people often use interchangeably, have a significant, if subtle, difference. Likewise the difference between something that is urgent and something that is important is thoroughly explained in the context of the text.


-Efficiency can be measured mathematically. so if you don't produce data, you are only making weak anecdotal musing. That's why algorithmic pathways are often analyzed statistically to measured it's efficiency without resorting to anecdotes.


Life is full of weak, anecdotal musings. We're talking about personal time management, not industrial engineering here. Most of my day's activities cannot be measured mathematically, maybe your day's activities can.

I also don't see how their making a profit has anything to do with whether or not their methods are effective or efficient. The methods work for me, I don't own stock, and I don't work for F.C. so I couldn't care less about their profitability.

[mookie123]

If a company is selling ideas which centered around "effectiveness and efficiency" you would think at least they apply it to their own business no?
------------
The word efficient and effectives are only explicitely define in to places in the article.

1. The term "efficiency" has been abused through over-use. In its most general form, efficiency is defined as the number of results produced in a given period of time. Given this definition, efficiency is not necessarily improved by multi-tasking, connection, and even interaction.

2. this picture.
http://www.brighthand.com/images/more_callout_1.jpg

Homemade textual deconstruction, since the article essentially just word dances and interpretaion might as well bring in the good ol' lit. trick:

- declared "abused through over-use" than go on giving his own definition. At least one would think he could have used the common dictionary definition if he rants about how everybody making up new meanings.

-I am not sure what to make of the little diagram, he never discussed how to interpret. So i take it the desciption below the main words ar expounding the main idea.

-Doing things right is dictionary definition of effective. (but he insist it's efficient)

-Doing the "right" thing has a very broad meaning but generally connotate with "ethics" and "the right" action. (ie. don't kill, be good)

eg.. I don't steal medication so my mother need not be dying is the "right" thing to do in standard capitalist utilitarian fram of thinking, but taking "time" as criteria certainly is NOT efficient. It is not even effective if my intended goal is curing my mother. But it sure is "the right thing to do" (not stealing, respect ownership is paramount)

-Effective stonewaller: efficient at creating directionless action.

-effective speed reducer that can work efficiently.

If that is not enough confusion, there is another word "productivity" being derived from "efficient" and "productive"

....well this ought to create enough semantic kinks to blow up the articles apart. heh.....

(at last those stupid lit. course actually have some use)