Multitask or Unitask?
 

So does multitasking save you time or does it slow you down?

Ask any business efficiency expert and he'll say Multi is inefficient - ie. its better to do 100% of task A followed by 100% of task B followed by 100% of task C than say 1/3rd of A+1/3rd of B+1/3rd of C, followed by 1/3rd of A+1/3rd of B... well, you get the idea.

Reason being: do 100% straight off and that task is finished - if someone is waiting for that task to be finished then they aren't delayed unnecesarily (clearly the order of tasks has to be considered). Split the tasks and each one stays open longer and so each gets finished later, plus the action of jumping between tasks involves time taken to re-familiarise with the position as it was when you left off and what then has to be done next to resume.

Sounds OK, but then multitasking might also be applied to an activity like setting a kettle to boil and then using the intervening time to do something else other than watch the damn thing until it does!

Add to this the fact that men are renowned for their ability to focus on one thing properly (that's a polite way of saying we cannot do two things at once!) whereas women (allegedly) thrive on doing several things at the same time - Mrs CF is in her element when she's preparing the evening meal while talking on the phone and also partaking of a generous flute of Frex all imperceptibly occuring at once (maybe being 'in her element' has a lot to do with the presence of the Frex!).

But then as we all know - a woman is never ready on time, whereas a man always is. And let's not forget how long a woman takes in the loo/powder room (what goes on by way if multitasking in their boggles the imagination!).

Any thoughts as to the answer to this conundrum?

Often, I would rather unitask (is that a real word?) because I focus better that way and feel more satisfied when the task is complete.

However multitasking helps to overcome the frustration of never being able to finish something in one go. For example not being able to get through to someone (maybe on their mobile ;)) or a printer running out of ink or not having the right allen key.

Perhaps I am very manly. After all I am always ready on time. I was brought up to believe there is no such thing as fashionably late - unless fashionable means damn rude in your dictionary. I admit I love a long, slow time to get ready - but I'd rather start mid-afternoon than ever keep anyone waiting.

I like unitasking but switching back and forth between things very quickly.

many jobs require multi-tasking, if you can't multi-task you aren't going to make it.

Bah.

There is no "multitask". Only round-robin, short cycle, "unitasks". Please. If you're doing this, you're not doing that. Sometimes two tasks have some component part in common and both will be advanced with one activity, but that's not multitasking. You're still only ever doing one thing at a time.

The problem (certainly for me, and likely for others) is the speed at which the focus changes. When it is too fast, I don't have sufficient time to make progress on a give element of my "multitask". Or, if it's too slow, and I spend time waiting idly while an element of my "multitask". Moving from "unitask" to "unitask" too quickly or too slowly is a problem. When I get it right though, it looks just like efficient "multitasking".

My boss used to say I was like a spider on coke because I am really not good at sticking to one task at a time.

Incidentally: my dad and my brother are both wholly incapable of being ready to leave the house at the designated time.

I multitask when trying to accomplish physical things -- pick up around the house, cooking, check the email, pay a bill, etc.

While working on intellectual tasks, unitasking usually works better for me. Really focus and get it done fast.

Multitasking is not something that a human is easily able to achieve - we're more single threaded than multi threaded. Get too much going and our 'processors' can't handle the load.

When planning for a large project, for example, designing and developing a software system, the Gantt chart that most Project Managers work off of, won't allow you to assign multiple tasks to the same person/resource at one time, because of the inherent inability for that person to do two things at one time.

Granted, some positions require a person to do a lot of things in a short period of time - but this is not 'multi-tasking', it's more time management and effort driven focus.

This is true, but there's also an efficiency to strive for.

We are less and less a manual labor workforce, but manual laborers offer the best examples of this. If you are a carpenter, building a house, you want to put your stack of lumber right where you need it, with all the pieces in the order you will need them. If you end up having to re-stack your pile of lumber 3 or 4 times as you are digging through it looking for just the right board, you are wasting too much time. You should have no wasted movements. Every motion you make should be productive. If you are like that, you won't actually be working very hard, but you will build your house in half the time your competition does. It's all about being efficient.

With today's office jobs, it can be more difficult to see where there are obvious inefficiencies. We come up with catch phrases like "multitasking" but I think we are just doing what the old-timers did. Trying to be efficient.

One day, please change your user title to Spider on Coke. Just for one day. Please?

(Maybe as a special treat for me on my last day here NEXT THURSDAY)

You've alluded to moving to London in another post. And now you say this.

What's going on Sundae?

She's going to meet me in Kentucky and drive my SAG vehicle!

Wow, next Thursday....that's suddenly sounding very very imminent!. Excited yet?

I agree, but we can be trained to do it. By this I mean perform precise physical tasks while completely and constantly thinking about other critical tasks, alarms, indicators (visual and audible), and performing unrelated tasks which tend to be repetitive. Flying an airplane is doing this, so are numerous medical tasks, a number of military tasks require this. We can be trained to do it, those who can't don't make it.

I'll start a Me Me ME thread so I don't hijack this one.

Y'all seem to have missed the conclusion here.

I think it's all that wiping we bother to do. :)

About the only thing I can truly multitask on is talking--I can talk about one thing and do another with the greatest of ease. This usually manifests as being on the computer while I'm talking on the phone. A friend of mine has marveled at the constant typing and clicking she hears in the background, but she's specifically tried to catch me being distracted and it hasn't happened yet. But everything else, it's like others have said--I'm really unitasking in quick succession and being efficient with my time.

I've become much better at time management in the past year...it's amazing how much you can get done when you spell out what you need to do, focus on doing the most important shit first then moving on to the next task.

I think humans can multi-task, but it's not an optimal function in the end. I'd rather give 100% to do 2 things and maybe take a little more time than to do 2 things at 75%.

Some humans can multitask efficiently and some can't. You have it or you don't. I personally don't have it but I am able to shift my focus quickly so I can basically multi-task without actually doing it.

*sigh*

Keep trying, you pseudo-taskers. It just doesn't exist. I'm not the only one to say so, here are a couple of interesting articles that support my position that it's one thing at a time, round and round and round.

Meet the Life Hackers

A warning on the limits of multitasking

Multitasking = unitasking, but losts of 'em? I'm not so sure....

Well, let's qualify that by saying /confessing that I get stuffed by multi-tasking because of the type of work I have to do. It's generally managing time-sensitive contracts involving ships - essentially ensuring that elements of the contract are completed at the right time as subsequent activities are dependent upon their proper completion. Alongside of this there are post contract activities which are drawn out exercises requiring detailed and painstaking analysis.

The idea is to create a gap to allow a clear and uninterrupted run at the detailed analytical stuff, but inevitably one or more time-sensitive issues do interrupt. The time seinsitive issues are not always thrown in your face though - they are communicated via email (so you only find them when you stop and check for new emails), or even not communicated at all and only reveal themselves as issues when you go searching for them.

Not a healthy mix and it can all too easily arise that on one single plate I have a half-completed piece of analysis, several fresh emails on different contracts advising that the tasks that should have been completed haven't been (or if they have then unsatisfactorily), and an innocent bit of investigating has uncovered another issue or two that shouldn't be there.

All to easy to try to nibble at them all, and in some ways that's what happens - after prioritising you move the chosen task as far as you can at that time, and then move on to the next one in line - so several tasks are open for some time - that's multi-tasking in my book and needs managing - I know which tasks I need to see completed first and they get the major amount of attention to push for a result/conclusion, but I must still see and get other high priority tasks moving towards a conclusion also. I cannot afford to devote time solely to one task from beginning to end without diversion.

I am good at multi-tasking, and I do know my limits.
Something that really ticked me off was that my old boss was slow and and uni-tasker but expected me to do three times the work she did (which I could do if I really pushed it). While she took frequent breaks while working on the same thing all day, she would ask how many things I had gotten done that day and would get short with me if I was only doing one thing.
After a while I told her that I felt it was unfair, she tried to stop doing it, but kept doing it when she got behind. Slacker.

I shall!

I buy your premise, but keep in mind it depends what tasks you're thinking about. Some manual things, like folding laundry, mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, require minimal mental input. Certainly you can do mental tasks, like budget, grocery, planning or trying to figure out where that squeak in the car is. It depends on the difficulty of the tasks.

Hmmm..

you're a bloke, right? :lol: :p


Seriously, it does exist (trust me, I'm a doctor and I do it all the time :eek: ) and is a useful tool, but not for academically-loaded tasks.

I can easily fold laundry, use sign language to direct my children to get their own damn snacks and discuss swim team policy on the phone at the same time (and i will probably also wipe one child's nose, remove another's splinter and resort the recycling bin during that couple of minutes). But when I need to deal with the school's weekly scrip order, the kids had better have that video down quiet.....

Stolen. Hey talk a look at my yard and house. Solid proof. :bolt:

I'm super at multitasking.

My boss growls that I dont look at him, so therefor am not paying attention to what he is saying.

Really, I am chatting on msn/yahoo, entering a finance application and listening to his barked instructions. I can recite what he said word for word with the same emphasis on the C word :)

Multitasking is a huge part of my job, even when I am not chatting on msn or reading the cellar.

Seriously though, I can chat on my phone, apply make up and change gears in my car...whilst sipping my coffee on the way to work :D

multi tasking: eating lunch, writing this post while listening to the staff out the front with a difficult customer.

When I first started my current job, by boss at that time (actually, coincedentally a friend of mine) asked me if I could do many things at once. I said "Of course, I'm a drummer."

But seriously, I define my tasks as Active, Pending, and Resolved. Active tasks can go in order of priority, but Pending tasks can't go anywhere until something else beyond my control happens. I suppose I could sit at my desk and do nothing until that thing happens, but that doesn't seem efficient to me.

I don't think there is really such a thing as Uni-Tasking, except in cases where someone was being very lazy and careless towards their job, taking the attitude of doing one simple thing at a time, regardless of whether this achieves anything other than killing time until they can clock out.

Hmm..., suggest you don't say that out loud if you find yourself about to undergo an operation and are within earshot of the surgeon.

You can unitask if you have enough work assembled for a set project. I can spend most of a day working on one part of my job, and when I'm approaching a deadline this can mean putting my calls through to answerphone and not checking my emails (and closing the Cellar!) I consider that unitasking.

I agree it wouldn't be possible every day with the job I do though.

I train surgeons ... (how to use the software I support). I don't think you could get through Medical School without multi-tasking.

Second. I work in an OR.

I suggest unitasking the reloading of ammo.

I'm surprises that no one gave me the BS line "your boss is allowed to expect more from you".
Thought about it after I posted that.

Wow, I can't recite people word for word even if I am paying sole attention to them.

You're Boss is allowed to expect anything he/she wants from any employee.
I'll go even further and say he/she can demand it.
You are free to tell him/her to take the job and shove it.

Multitasking usually ends badly for me.

Multitasking is the generator of loose ends

The word, 'multitasking,' reminds me of a job I had once, where we were eventually assigned numbers, and no longer referred to by our names. I hightailed it out of there not too long after that.

I can understand that, user #2663

I'm not leaving this time! Muahahaha!

Poor multi-tasking is the generator of loose ends.