Multitask or Unitask?

[Cyclefrance]

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?

[Sundae]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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

[TheMercenary]

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

[BigV]

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".

[DanaC]

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.

[Pie]

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.

[Dagney]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

Bah.

There is no "multitask". Only round-robin, short cycle, "unitasks"...

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.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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)

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

(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?

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by glatt

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!

[DanaC]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Dagney

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.

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.

[Sundae]

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