June 2006 Archives
Merlin Mann links to this press release by ntl:Telewest, a UK telecoms firm, reporting on a study showing that "Two hours, 10 minutes was the amount that people wasted each day at work on average, of which one hour 38 minutes was due to communication technologies not being used to good effect."
Unfortunately, the press release doesn't say anything about how the study was conducted, so you can't tell much from it.
The press release notes,
Highlighted in the research was the over-reliance on voicemail when returning or making phone calls, having to wait for people to call you back before you get the answer you require. Similarly, a delay caused by having to wait for emails to be answered with relevant information was another area that increased time wastage each day.
That's potentially interesting, but I wonder if this is really an issue of misuse of technology rather than a weakness in the technology. One of the quotes in the release makes me think that might be the case:
"Often the root of reduced productivity is that you don't know where people are, be it in a meeting, at another location or away off site. New communication services with instant messaging features are changing this, as they can identify instantly what an individual is doing and enable the 'caller' to communicate with them in the most appropriate way. New services will aim to iron out the productivity blips that hamper organisations today and save employees from wasting time at work," [said Stephen Beynon, MD of ntl:Telewest Business.]
On the other hand, instant messaging has the inefficient side effect of interrupting whatever else one might be trying to accomplish at the moment. As a Hewlett-Packard UK study pointed out, that also impairs productivity. I doubt it would turn out to be best if everyone I worked with or for knew where I am and what I'm doing at all times.
I wonder if some of these technological problems have human solutions rather than technical ones.
(By the way, what's the story behind all these productivity studies by UK firms? That's two press releases in two weeks. Where can the public find detailed reports of these studies?)
The London office of Baker & McKenzie LLP apparently thought it necessary to send the editors of the popular BoingBoing weblog a warning letter — yes, a warning letter, even more obnoxious than an unmerited cease-and-desist — letting the editors know that Baker would be "actively monitoring your website ... to identify unlawful activity...." The "unlawful activity" they had in mind: any reproduction of media that would infringe on the rights of a company that must be (I'm guessing) the distributor of World Cup footage.
Did Baker & McKenzie send this letter to every website that has a high-traffic reputation? BoingBoing's editors, as they point out in their post, couldn't care less about the World Cup or professional sports in general (as anyone familiar with the site would know). Did the solicitors of Baker & McKenzie know that their letter would itself be posted on BoingBoing for its 1.75 million daily visitors to see and ridicule? They should have. What on earth were they thinking? I doubt that this tactic helps them or their client be taken more seriously; in fact, I'd guess that it has the opposite effect.
(Via Kevin O'Keefe.)
