Podcast episode 047: schedule killers – bad multitasking
The pm411.org Project Management Podcast episode 047: schedule killers - bad multitasking [22:56m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Get the pm411.org Project Management Podcast Newsletter delivered by email for free! – Your email address and personal information are confidential and will never be sold or rented.
Today we continue our series on Schedule Killers – those tendencies and traits of project teams that cause us to miss our deadlines! In Episode 045, we discussed “The Student Syndrome,” which is defined as “the phenomenon that many people will start to fully apply themselves to a task just at the last possible moment before a deadline.” In Episode 046, we discussed “Parkinson’s Law,” which is defined as “the demand upon a resource tends to expand to match the supply of the resource.” Today we talk about “Bad Multitasking.”
What is Bad Multitasking?
Bad Multitasking is also often expressed as “when resources constantly switch focus between critical path tasks on multiple projects AND someone is waiting for the output of their task before they can do their work.”
Unfortunately our brains are not wired to do more than one cognitive task at a time. In other words, people are not able to successfully do two tasks at the same time that require their attention. To prove this point, the University of Utah Psychology department published a study back in 2006 showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
So why do people try to multitask?
People try to multitask is because of lots of reasons.
1.) People frequently become bored working on a single task at a time. This is especially the case for programmers and other team members that need to do detailed work that require a lot of concentration. We feel that by switching to a different task we can refresh our minds with new work. Unfortunately, this will most likely cause each of the tasks being worked on to take longer to complete.
2.) Poor work prioritization. If a team member doesn’t know whether Task A is more important than Task B and is expected to get both done at the same time, they may try to do just that. Unfortunately, working on two tasks at the same time will make both of them take longer.
3.) Customer / Manager demands and pressure. Some managers and customers tend to use the whip more than the carrot. And frequently team members are stuck between two or more managers or customers who use this technique at the same time. This always reminds me a bit of the “rundown play” in baseball where the runner is stuck between two bases as the infielders keep him switching directions until he finally is tagged out (or gets to one of the bases safely). In the PM world, the team member is often forced to change directions between two project managers while trying to satisfy both until he finally is “tagged out” for being late on both tasks.
4.) We are taught that multitasking is an admirable skill set. There is some truth to being able to successfully manage multiple projects at the same time, but this is different than switching constantly mid-stream between tasks between the projects. It is about being able to successfully prioritize your tasks with the help of your managers to make sure all schedule requirements are met without sacrifice to the other factors of the Triple-Constraint.
So why is trying to multi-switch between tasks bad?
1.) It will always cause each task to take longer. Looking at the figure below, it is easy to see that three tasks of 1 week duration will take longer to complete when Solution #1 using Bad Multitasking to switch midstream between tasks is used over Solution #2 where tasks are prioritized and then worked on until completion. Not only will Task A and Task B be completed nearly a week later, the additional setup time required to switch between tasks causes completion of all three tasks to take significantly longer.
2.) Quality problems will escalate. Team members switching between multiple tasks must try to remember what activities were completed prior to the previous switch. Team members also find that they need to try to rush midstream from one task to another in order to try to make up for additional setup time and the inherent delays that come from switching between tasks. As a result they will frequently miss small, yet important, details.
3.) Team members will feel stress / frustration / no sense of completion. The pressure in switching between tasks and the frustration of feeling like there isn’t a sense of focus to complete a task can cause undue stress on team members.
How to cure bad multitasking
1.) Break up your tasks based on the 8/80 rule. By keeping tasks relatively small (8 hours as a minimum and 80 hours as a maximum), you will reduce the chances of burnout and instead allow team members to feel a sense of completion as each of the tasks are quickly completed and they move on to the next one.
2.) Prioritize tasks and projects. Make sure the team members know what their project and task priorities are so that they can feel comfortable in focusing on just one task at a time.
3.) Resource level your projects. Most scheduling applications like Microsoft Project have the ability to resource level your project so that team members are not over allocated on multiple tasks. Yes, this may initially make your schedule appear longer, but by working with your team members you can most likely agree to shorter task durations since now they will be able to focus on completing just one task at a time rather than suffering from the inefficiencies of trying to complete multiple tasks at the same time. A good way of doing this is by asking your team members to provide an estimate of their actual effort (work in hours) rather than in terms of duration to complete the task. If they are truly focused on completing one task at a time, then they should be successful in completing each task based on their effort rather than adding additional time to cover the effects of bad multitasking.
4.) Hold frequent short standup meetings instead of weekly team meetings. In Episode 003, Part 2 on Effective Meetings, I discuss using standup meetings to help quickly assess any issues that might be keeping your team members from completing their tasks. This will help team members from getting “stuck” and switching to another task before their original task is completed. These meetings will also help assess how much work is still remaining on each task to allow team members to efficiently complete and transfer to their next task without needing to wait for deliverables from other team members first.
5.) Help prevent interruptions to your team members. Ask your team members to set aside a period of time during each day to check their email rather than throughout the day. This will help prevent them from being “sidetracked” from their original task by email requests. Also, see what meetings can be postponed or eliminated for team members if they are working on critical path or critical chain tasks.
Summary
So, let’s summarize,
1.) Bad Multitasking occurs “when resources constantly switch focus between critical path tasks on multiple projects AND someone is waiting for the output of their task before they can do their work.”
2.) Team members frequently try to switch midstream between tasks due to boredom of working on the same task, because of poor work prioritization, because of multiple customer or manager demands, or because they feel it is a good skill to possess.
3.) Trying to switch midstream between tasks will always cause each task to take longer, it will increase the chances of quality issues, and it will cause team members undue stress and frustration.
4.) By breaking down tasks by using the 8/80 rule, prioritizing team member’s tasks and projects, resource leveling your project schedule, holding frequently short standup meetings, and asking team members to limit interruptions such as meetings and checking their email, you can overcome the effects of bad multitasking on your project.
Next time we will wrap up our series on Schedule Killers by looking at eliminating time wasted in tasks and using that additional time to protect what really matters – the project deliverable date at the end of the project.
What other suggestion do you have in eliminating bad multitasking? Leave us a comment below and let us know!
[...] Ron Holohan at pm411 casts pods about bad multitasking, or ‘Schedule Killers’ – pm411 Podcast [...]
In my opinion, the diagram understates the setup costs, especially for complex tasks.
What matters is concentration. Multitasking isn’t a valuable skill.
Almost anybody can multitask. How many people change a cd while talking on a phone or while drinking a smoothie or while looking for an address or while driving? How many mothers juggle adult responsibilities and the agendas of a couple of children? Managers should emphasize and reward concentration on a chosen task.
When a manager interrupts a task in progress and replaces it with a new one, there is risk that the staff won’t complete the first task. So the previous investment of effort in the first task has no result, and the ROI for the first task is zero.
If the manager interrupts or allows interruption of tasks, and if half the tasks are never resumed, then half the staff is wasted.
By completing tasks, each effort can bear fruit. So, even when more recent events suggest that the second task is “more important” than the first, managers should allow completion of the first task whenever feasible.
As a corollary, the manager shouldn’t commit staff to a task until the manager commits herself to supporting the task’s completion.
Excellent points, Dan! And I agree that the diagram doesn’t take into account the “true time” wasted due to the increased number of setups required in “multi-switching” between tasks. Thanks for your comment and additional insight!