I usually refer to this effect by noting that “context switching is expensive.” I got it from CPU scheduling but it’s also famously true of light bulbs: turning it off and then on again costs more energy than leaving it on for a short time. (I forget what the actual time threshold is offhand.) This is why grouping/batching tasks works—if you can do three things in a row in the same place, you don’t have to switch contexts for each one. It’s also a case against multitasking.
I would add to your hurts/help lists “having an overwhelming quantity of work” and “setting yourself clear, modest goals,” respectively. I’ve been discussing elsewhere the task system I’ve been using for myself lately; the relevant part is that most of the time I only see my short “today” list of about 5-6 items. I don’t even look at the long list of tasks to-do-ever, except when I’m adding something or picking out a few tasks to go on the next day’s list.
Another suggestion for the helpful list: “novelty.” That’s what pulls your attention to google reader, but it’s also what makes you feel more organized and productive when you’re trying out a new organization system. I wonder if one could use this effect deliberately—change the format or style of your organization/task list periodically, to keep it fresh and interesting.
I usually refer to this effect by noting that “context switching is expensive.” I got it from CPU scheduling but it’s also famously true of light bulbs: turning it off and then on again costs more energy than leaving it on for a short time.
light bulbs: turning it off and then on again costs more energy than leaving it on for a short time. (I forget what the actual time threshold is offhand.)
IIRC, it’s around 30 minutes for an incandescent and 2 hours for standard fluorescent. This is supposed to include the energy costs of manufacture vs the increased wear-and-tear. I don’t have a citation handy, and I don’t know how modern compact fluorescent bulbs change things.
change the format or style of your organization/task list periodically, to keep it fresh and interesting.
Hah, I actually do this because I’m terrible at holding to my organisational systems for more than a few days at a time, and usually assume that it’s because my system wasn’t awesome enough. Maybe I’ll just start considering my need to tinker with my system as more of a feature than a bug.
I usually refer to this effect by noting that “context switching is expensive.” I got it from CPU scheduling but it’s also famously true of light bulbs: turning it off and then on again costs more energy than leaving it on for a short time. (I forget what the actual time threshold is offhand.) This is why grouping/batching tasks works—if you can do three things in a row in the same place, you don’t have to switch contexts for each one. It’s also a case against multitasking.
I would add to your hurts/help lists “having an overwhelming quantity of work” and “setting yourself clear, modest goals,” respectively. I’ve been discussing elsewhere the task system I’ve been using for myself lately; the relevant part is that most of the time I only see my short “today” list of about 5-6 items. I don’t even look at the long list of tasks to-do-ever, except when I’m adding something or picking out a few tasks to go on the next day’s list.
Another suggestion for the helpful list: “novelty.” That’s what pulls your attention to google reader, but it’s also what makes you feel more organized and productive when you’re trying out a new organization system. I wonder if one could use this effect deliberately—change the format or style of your organization/task list periodically, to keep it fresh and interesting.
Joel Spolsky has a great article on this:
Human Task Switches Considered Harmful
Oh, spiffy. Maybe that’s where the person I got the habit from heard it (although it doesn’t really seem like his style). Thanks. :)
IIRC, it’s around 30 minutes for an incandescent and 2 hours for standard fluorescent. This is supposed to include the energy costs of manufacture vs the increased wear-and-tear. I don’t have a citation handy, and I don’t know how modern compact fluorescent bulbs change things.
Hah, I actually do this because I’m terrible at holding to my organisational systems for more than a few days at a time, and usually assume that it’s because my system wasn’t awesome enough. Maybe I’ll just start considering my need to tinker with my system as more of a feature than a bug.
Exactly! That’s just the realization I had. It’s kind of in the spirit of structured procrastination—put your wandering mind to work for you.