Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
After more than 30 years working in multiple domains, with distributed/located virtual/non-virtual teams, it is hard for me to remember a project where the team did not perform multitasking including it the "new wave" of project based on Agile approach. Thank´s God or some force that governs the Universe programs/project under my supervision achieved the goals which are the reason for their existence. So, if you ask me, talking in the extreme, it has no sense for me to debate about multi-tasking yes or not (Please, I am not saying that for your post which is really interesting. It is because what I am facing along my career). No matter that, in the academic field, I had participated in this type of studies inside the CMU SEI. One of the models that is "the father" of some models taking for the Agile world was TSP that between other things has the intention to address agility in multi-tasking team environments. At the end, the human being in its daily life, performs multi-tasking or not?. We was born for being multi-tasking. One of the test for that is when your childrens was born and you are in charge of them when they are babys. Saving Changes...
Alexandre CostaScrum Master| Integer Consulting - Pictet technologiesLoures, Portugal
It all depends, we must take on acount the switch frequency, the number of tasks. For me more than two tasks is not productive, because it will cause a high switch frequency causing productivity losses.
Two tasks is the ideal when we encounter temporary roadblocks in one of tasks, allowing continuing working in the other task, however if the switch frequency is two high even with two tasks we will loose productivity.
We could also take in consideration the profile of the person that is making multitasking and is capabilitie of fast switching between tasks.
Every switch between tasks has a cost of time, we must spent time again focusing in the task, recover the exact place where we leave it in the past.
In my opinion in a perfect world we should avoid multitask, with more than two tasks or high switching frequency as result causes productivity losses, increase the prone to error and leaves to many incomplete tasks for long periods. Saving Changes...
The challenge with multitasking is that few organizations or individuals can detect when they are falling down the slippery slope towards unhealthy multitasking.
Remember that our work is rarely done in isolation and if our multitasking is creating delays for those downstream of us in a value stream then that is causing an organizational impact even if we feel we are being effective.
Maximize value NOT utilization - if you appreciate Goldratt's Theory of Constraints, then we want to keep our most constrained resource (people/equipment/materials) fully loaded which usually means that others will NOT be fully loaded.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Sreepathi
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
Any role you play always has more than one task
I would like to understand your question better. You refers to:
- Play multiple roles at once?
- Play multiple roles, rotating one at a time?
...
1 reply by Sreepathi Ramireddygari
Jan 02, 2020 3:49 PM
Sreepathi Ramireddygari
...
Luis, My question refers to either cases in your response.
Saving Changes...
Wade HarshmanScrum Master| GDITIndianapolis, In, United States
I don't believe many people truly focus on one task for long periods of time. No one is 100% efficient, and we all get distracted.
But neither do I think that multi-tasking is a good project strategy. We can't talk about multi-tasking without talking about context switching. Various studies show that switching tasks can create 20% - 40% wasted time in unnecessarily closing out the previous task and preparing for the new one. If the previous task is done, this is necessary. If not, it's a form of muda or waste that should be eliminated. What's worse, because that previous task isn't done, you'll have to switch back... another 20% - 40% waste.
The amount of wasted time increases dramatically the more you attempt to multi-task. There are some really good visual models available online that illustrate the damage that multi-tasking can have on productivity.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Dec 31, 2019 8:14 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Wade
Very interesting your perspective
In this situation, where a person performs a task for some time, they have the opportunity to perform another task at another time. The work is organized so that there is rotation in the accomplishment of the tasks.
What raises the issue of people's competencies to accomplish these tasks
Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
Don't know if multitasking is something to believe in or not, but certainly, there is consideration and opinions on whether advantageous or not.
I for one, do think there is a time and place for some type of multitasking, but also recognize the dangers and use very cautiously. A few years back I made a conscious decision to avoid multitasking in favor of dedicated time to finish --- start finishing; stop starting --- it has been helpful in my day-to-day and has improved my focus. Saving Changes...
Depends. For some situations, definitely yes. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 31, 2019 7:49 AM
Replying to Wade Harshman
...
I don't believe many people truly focus on one task for long periods of time. No one is 100% efficient, and we all get distracted.
But neither do I think that multi-tasking is a good project strategy. We can't talk about multi-tasking without talking about context switching. Various studies show that switching tasks can create 20% - 40% wasted time in unnecessarily closing out the previous task and preparing for the new one. If the previous task is done, this is necessary. If not, it's a form of muda or waste that should be eliminated. What's worse, because that previous task isn't done, you'll have to switch back... another 20% - 40% waste.
The amount of wasted time increases dramatically the more you attempt to multi-task. There are some really good visual models available online that illustrate the damage that multi-tasking can have on productivity.
Dear Wade
Very interesting your perspective
In this situation, where a person performs a task for some time, they have the opportunity to perform another task at another time. The work is organized so that there is rotation in the accomplishment of the tasks.
What raises the issue of people's competencies to accomplish these tasks
...
1 reply by Wade Harshman
Dec 31, 2019 1:11 PM
Wade Harshman
...
I don't believe it's a matter of competency. A person can be competent to perform many different types of tasks. The issue is that if a person is performing too many tasks without completing any of them, they are wasting considerable effort by repeatedly switching between those tasks.
Rather than attempt to multi-task, it is better to finish an important task and deliver that value, then switch to another important task and focus on it.
Think of it like a production floor. A multi-tasking model would have a person perform a little bit of work at one station, then walk over to perform a little bit of work on another machine, then walk back to the first station to do a little bit more work, and repeat this. This would be good exercise but would generate significant waste in the value stream and delay final delivery.
An efficient process would complete a task or set of tasks at one station, then move the work to the next. People and projects are no different. We typically can't eliminate all distractions, but we should avoid purposefully multi-tasking when possible. Too many people try to accomplish multiple things at once but only damage their own productivity. Similarly, too many organizations think they gain value by assigning their teams to multiple projects when they could deliver far more value by delivering one high-value project at a time.
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
My take is to try avoid multitasking, as it has been proven for a given set of activities to be not efficient or lean. A lot of switching time between tasks is wasted, procrastination is promoted as it is easier to start short tasks than longer ones, even if they are more important.
The brain, the neocortex where we think, can only focus on one task at a time. If we seem to multitask, it is often that we think about one thing but do others automatically, like driving, as habits.
Having said this, we are living in the flow of time, events and surprises happen, we react, we are surprised, disrupted and so life pushes us to multitask.
The countermeasure is self-control and discipline and sticking to tasks we started. Then you may experience what is called flow, you forget about time and can complete really complex tasks. Saving Changes...
I don't have a problem with switching tasks. Switching between related tasks can have minimal impact on project performance. The part of multitasking that concerns me is switching focus between tasks on different projects. To add to what @Wade said, each project has its own context. When you switch work between projects, you need to shift context. A developer might be using the same libraries, but different functions, or instantiate the same function in a different way. You might need a totally different user experience on a different project. You might be working with people in a different country and have to deal with different cultures and holidays. A stakeholder who supports one project may be antagonistic on another project.
The differences might be minor, but if you are running multiple projects they start to add up. How much time does it take you, as a project manager, to be an expert on six different complex projects? Can you answer in depth questions about each of them at any given moment, without referring to notes or powerpoint?
A critical factor is the rate at which you switch context or tasks. Assuming that most people don't physically performs two tasks at the same time (without the use of automation), if you are able to reach a stopping point before switching, your ability to switch successfully improves. Whereas, if you barely have time to think about one problem before switching to another, you're likely to have to start over again when you switch back.
An already challenging situation gets harder when organizations attempt to multitask AND go faster. There is a lot of value to be found in prioritizing and focusing on the right work. If you get the right work done quickly, you can deliver value more quickly. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
