Is The Inefficiency Of Multitasking A Bug Or A Feature?

from the questions-to-ponder... dept

There have been a bunch of studies recently claiming that multi-tasking and our constant use of technology harms our ability to concentrate or accomplish certain tasks. A recent example is a study claiming that so much tech usage is harming our ability to learn because kids can't focus as much on long form work. Of course, I'm a bit skeptical of any such claims (almost all anecdotal) considering that actual studies have shown that kids read more books today than in the past. And, it's not just kids. More people are reading books than in the past in the general population as well.

Still, there's another argument to be made also, which reader JJ recently pointed out. Stowe Boyd notes that all of these types of studies miss the point, in that personal efficiency may be less important than being more interactive:

Perhaps what we are doing has nothing to do with efficiency. I don't operate the way I do with the principal goal of speeding things up. My motivations are much more complex and diffused.

I don't perceive what I am doing as multitasking, really. I am not trying to speed up how quickly I shift from one thing to another. Instead, I am involved in a stream of activities, in which other people figure prominently, either synchronously through direct discussion (a la Twitter or IM) or indirectly, through their writings and my responses.

In many cases, I leave activities dangling because I don't know exactly how I feel about them. In some cases, I could resolve my feelings and take some action if I simply stopped other activities and focused solely on that activity, but in most cases that is not the case. And simply forcing myself to focus on the next thing in the activity would not lead to an acceptable or beneficial result, necessarily.

It's like a painter with a number of works in process. My primary motivation is not getting a particular painting 'done', but adding dabs of paint that I feel are the right ones.

I honestly had never thought of it this way, and I'll admit I'm not sure how I feel on this. But it is an interesting way of looking at such things. Obviously, in a work setting, personal productivity may matter. But, in general -- just doing stuff online -- is it a problem that we multitask? Or is that a feature?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Freeing Journalists From Newsprint's Straitjacket

from the low-overhead dept

One of the interesting things about the end of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's print edition, which Mike noted on Monday, is how much more flexibility the PI will have to adjust to changing economic conditions now that it's an online-only publication. I don't think it's generally appreciated how constraining the newspaper format is. Readers expect a daily paper to be a certain size every day, and to arrive on their doorstep at a certain time every morning. Meeting those requirements involves a ton of infrastructure and personnel: typesetters, printing presses, delivery trucks, paper carriers, and so forth. To meet these infrastructure requirements, a paper has to have a minimum circulation, which in turn requires covering a wide geographical area. All of which means that as a daily paper's circulation falls below a certain threshold, it can lead to a death spiral where cost-cutting leads to lower quality, which leads to circulation declines and more cost-cutting. Of course, some papers manage to survive with much smaller circulations than the PI, but these tend to be either weekly papers (which tend to have a very different business model) or papers serving smaller towns where they have a de facto monopoly on local news.

These economic constraints, in turn, greatly constrain what journalists can do. They have a strict deadline every evening, and there are strict limits on the word count they can publish. Because newspapers have to target a large, general audience with limited space, reporters are often discouraged from covering niche topics where they have the greatest interest or expertise. Moreover, because many newspaper readers rely on the paper as their primary source of news, people expect their newspaper to cover a broad spectrum of topics: national and international news, movie reviews, a business section, a comics page, a sports page, and so forth. Which means that reporters frequently get dispatched to cover topics they don't understand very well and that don't especially interest them. The content they produce on these assignments is certainly valuable, but it's probably not as valuable as the content they'd produce if they were given more freedom to pursue the subjects they were most passionate about.

The web is very different. Servers and bandwidth are practically free compared with printing presses and delivery trucks, so news organizations of virtually any size—from a lone blogger to hundreds of people—can thrive if they can attract an audience. And thanks to aggregation technologies such as RSS and Google News, readers don't expect or even want every news organization to cover every topic. Here at Techdirt, we don't try to cover sports, the weather, foreign affairs, or lots of other topics because we know there are other outlets that can cover those topics better than we could. Instead, we focus on the topics we know the most about—technology and business—and cover them in a way that (we hope) can't be found anywhere else. In the news business, as in any other industry, greater specialization tends to lead to higher quality and productivity.

Moving online will give the PI vastly more flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions and focus on those areas where they can create the most value. The PI says they'll have about 20 people producing content for the new web-based outlet. That's a lot fewer than the print paper employed, but it's enough to produce a lot of valuable content. And now that they're freed of the costs and constraints of newsprint, and the expectation to cover every topic under the sun, it'll be a lot easier to experiment and find a sustainable business model.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Economists Realizing That Current Music Industry Structure Leads To 'Sub-Optimal Outcomes'

from the you-noticed? dept

The music collection society MCPS PRS in the UK apparently had three economists coming from different viewpoints work together on a paper concerning the economics of the music industry on the internet today. It includes an economist from the collection society, one from the internet industry and one from the music industry. While the resulting paper does have some good points -- such as being one of the few industry produced papers that doesn't try to ignore the fact that file sharing directly competes with things like iTunes -- it appears to have some weaknesses as well.

The paper basically tries to describe the overall landscape for music on the internet, dividing it into three units (reflecting the three people working on the report): Music Service Providers (MSPs) such as Kazaa or iTunes (and, yes, it's impressive that they directly lump the authorized and unauthorized players together), Music Rights Providers (MRPs) such as ASCAP or other collections societies, and ISPs. The paper then uses some basic game theory to note that the interactions between these three players will often lead to "sub-optimal outcomes." No, really?

Instead, they suggest that the entire incentive structure of the industry should be reconsidered -- which is something I clearly believe as well. However, from the article, it looks like the approaches they line up don't do enough of that reconsidering. Why? Because they don't even seem to take into account the idea that (a) there are other players in the market that should be considered in the ecosystem and (b) one of the three legs of the stool set forth in the premise (the collections societies) may not be needed. If you take them out of the equation, but plug in other components of the market (say, the musicians themselves) you can quite easily see the model working quite differently than what's described in the report. Indeed, the options for creating win-win solutions become much clearer. In ignoring the other aspects of the market, while not considering that these so-called MRPs may not be necessary in today's world, the report falls well short of actually laying out optimal solutions in the market.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is The FCC Subsidizing The Least Efficient Providers Of Rural Telco Services?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a huge boondoggle for telcos, who keep getting more and more money out of it, with almost no oversight into what's done with that money. And, the way it's set up, it actually blocks more innovative (and cheaper!) services from being used to improve connectivity in rural areas. It's good to see others are beginning to notice this. News.com is running an article from Gregory L. Rosston at Stanford who points out that the USF rewards companies for being the least efficient providers. That is, by showing how much more it costs the telcos to provide for rural users, the FCC grants them even more money. In other words, the less efficient they are, the more money they get. Not exactly the type of incentives the FCC should be setting up -- but given FCC chair Kevin Martin's super chummy relationship with the telcos, perhaps it's no surprise.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

You're In The Wrong Business If You're Upset That Your Supplier Is More Efficient

from the welcome-to-reality dept

Saul Hansell at the NY Times has an interesting blog post about how various value added resellers (VARs) of Postini's anti-spam email solutions are upset at Postini's new parent company, Google, for drastically cutting the prices on Postini's offerings. Basically, they're upset that it's much more difficult for them to make a profit, and also because Google can now more efficiently service smaller customers, who Postini used to ignore, leaving them to the VARs. So, instead, these VARs are dropping Postini and looking for competitive vendors. Hansell even wonders if Google will be forced to raise the price just to keep the VARs happy.

My guess is that Google honestly couldn't care much less about what the VARs want. It seems to believe that the service was priced artificially high in the first place, and the company can do much better dropping the price and making the offering much more widely available. If VARs can't handle that, that's not Google's problem. What's more interesting, though, is this idea that VARs now think the solution is to go to a more expensive Postini competitor. Sure, it may seem like a better way to get the necessary margins, but eventually those efficiencies come home to roost, and customers will begin asking why they should pay so much to the VAR when they can just go direct to Google and buy Postini for a tiny fraction of the cost. If your supplier is much more efficient and can drop the price of something supplied, the answer should never be to drop them and sign up with a much more expensive supplier. You may fool some of your customers for a short period of time, but it's a losing long term bet.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..