Many of the benefits offered by new ways of working require you to think in reverse. Adapting in real-time rather than sticking to plans Read More
Over the past month, I’ve listened to Baroness Susan Greenfield three times. First, reading an article in The Sunday Times. Second, in the audience at one of her talks. Third, hearing an interview on the radio. The same topic came up at all three events (not surprising, since she has a new book to promote) – the effect new technology is having on learning. Or, rather, the disastrous effect new technology is having on learning.
And I have to say, I disagree with her argument and pessimism. Now she is a professor, at Oxford no less. And I am a mere mortal without so much as Bachelors degree to my name. But her belief seems to be that books are absolutely essential to educational development and learning. If you don’t read books, you’ll never progress beyond the mentality of a young child. It’s a wonder how we ever invented books in the first place…
Central to the argument is that children are now flitting between multiple different information mediums, nibbling lots of content but never chewing it properly before swallowing. And those pesky computer games are distorting our perception of reality. (I’d argue that, if anything, it has the opposite effect – making reality so depressingly clear that people prefer to live in the virtual.)
I agree that lots of nibbling is no substitute for a good book, if you want to dive into the theory and history of a subject. Just as books and computer games are no substitute for real-world experience. But I’m not sure the future being painted is quite as apocalyptic as the baroness believes. Computer simulations introduce all sorts of possibilities and new ways of learning. Imagine if we were living in the time when writing was just invented. The theory then would have probably been along the lines: “Writing words down will destroy the art of story-telling. It will ruin our ability to bond and form emotional connections with one another, to learn first-hand from our elders, transforming our identity of who and what we are.”
Agree, disagree? Here’s a link to one of her interviews – iD: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century by Susan Greenfield (The Sunday Times, May 08)
Interesting article on CNET – A new crop of kids: Generation We – talking about how the latest generations are growing up adept and comfortable with technology from a very early age. Some snippets:
Gabriel, an intensely curious kid who’s about to turn 8, has been fascinated by everything from skateboarding and basketball to statistics about world extremes…. He likes to look up information about the subjects on Wikipedia with his mom and then turn to YouTube for short video clips… If he hears a likeable song in a YouTube video, he might visit Apple’s iTunes store to download the music, too.
“Driving home we’ll see a bird,” Kim said, “and then go to Wikipedia (at home) and look it up. Then once we’re online, he’ll say, ‘How about we go to YouTube?'”
Naturally, the world of business and media is fascinated with understanding how to market and sell to this new generation.
I’m interested in a different angle – how will their ability to learn be influenced and affected by these newer Internet technologies, and what will the effect be on their future?
It’s easy to assume that having the Internet is going to make our children a lot smarter a lot sooner… resources that were previously only accessible to the priviledged few are now available to all, instantly. But is that all we need?
In the book “The Social Life of Information” by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, the authors make a very interesting comment:
The web has made learning about easier than ever. But learning to be requires the ability engage in the practice in question
…and that could be the new challenge. There will be no shortage of people able to demonstrate how much they know about all sorts of subjects. But how many people will actually be able to practice what they ‘know’. At the moment, there are still no shortcuts to becoming skilled in practice – determination, patience and effort continue to be essential ingredients.
If we become used to having instant answers to questions, will it affect our stamina for the deeper level of learning required to move from knowing about something to actually being something?
An effect from moving away from agriculture and manual labour has been that, put simply, most people aren’t as fit as they would have been 200 years ago.
Will the effect of not requiring effort to learn about subjects send our brains in the same direction as our stomachs? I hope not.
Notes from the Leaders in London conference held last December included an interesting quote from Larry Bassidy, former CEO at Honeywell:
“Ask a CEO what kind of culture they have and they will describe the kind of culture they want, as if it exists, instead of describing what is really going on”
A similar phrase could be applied to a lot of IT projects. The explosion of Web 2.0 activities in the consumer world are beginning to infiltrate the enterprise world. Indeed, the phrase Enterprise 2.0 is becoming a popular buzz word. But I’m not convinced those who say they want Enterprise 2.0 really do want Enterprise 2.0.
For example, a lot of projects these days include statements such as “we want a user-centred design”, “we want to focus on user experience”, “we want to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing”, “people are our most important asset”… But when you start delving into what is actually required, the following statements start to crop up: “users must store their documents on the intranet”, “we want to apply consistent standards and formats”, “we want to ensure best practices are captured and re-used”… Hmmm, not much emphasis on putting the user at the centre when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.
I’m not saying any of these requirements are wrong (tempting thought though…) But there is little point starting with a claim that you want one type of system – one that helps people work together and get stuff done – when the requirements suggest you want a very different type of system – one that manages and monitors what people do.
Just a thought, whilst SharePoint is bathing in the mud pit…
I have always been surprised how often I have been in a small group with at least two people sharing the same birthday (it’s happened at school, work, on holiday, on projects, basically more times than I can remember). With 365 days to pick from, it seems logical to think you’d need a pretty large group before duplications start to occur…
…but it takes just 23 people for there to be a greater than 50% chance that two people in the group will share the same birthday. For a good explanation of the maths behind the fact and why we so easily get it wrong, read The Law of Small Errors.
I find this simple probability exercise serves as a good reminder to test assumptions when analysing statistics. Sometimes the answer we expect to see is not remotely close to reality, but our brains have an annoying habit of preferring to believe expected myths rather than actual truths, no matter what evidence is presented before us. As we start to integrate business intelligence and performance dashboards into everyday activities, we need to beware our tendency to draw the wrong conclusions from the information presented.
I’ve read a few good books that cover this subject recently, including:
Last week the New Scientist magazine had an article about productivity: ‘Got a minute?‘ (subscription required to read full article online). It’s a good article highlighting the challenges with working in the face of constant interruptions, and includes the findings from various investigations, such as:
- Information workers, on average, get just three sustained minutes of
work before being interrupted (Gloria Mark, University of California, 2006)
- Interruptions take up over two hours of the working day and costs the US
economy an estimated $588 billion per year (IT research firm Basex, 2006)
- People are claiming to have developed attention deficit disorder in
adulthood (Edward Hallowell, pschiatrist, 2006)
- Being bombarded with emails and phone calls has a greater effect on IQ
than smoking marijuana (Glenn Wilson, Institute of Psychiatry, London, 2005)
The article goes on to look at ways of managing the interruptions including where technology can help resolve a situation that many believe has been caused by technology. All very interesting.
What the article doesn’t mention are the benefits of a life interrupted. How exactly did Basex come up with $588 billion as the estimated cost of interruptions to business. Did they assume that all interruptions are negative? Are all interruptions negative? Do they think people should be working non-stop all day on pre-planned tasks (well they have to be pre-planned to avoid any interruptions) to maximise productivity? If that were true, we’d have little use for collaboration or knowledge-sharing tools. And forget about real-time communications or mainstream business intelligence. There’s no need to hurry, do the number crunching and decision-making at the end of the day whilst sorting out the task list to occupy 100% of people’s time tomorrow.
This is the dilemma often facing projects aiming to improve ‘knowledge work’. In the world of knowledge and information, interruptions are often serendipitous but measuring them with anything other than hindsight is extremely difficult. Too often, we see surveys trying to reduce productivity down to a simple metric – how many tasks get completed during the day. This might work in a factory, where workers are required* to take allocated breaks at set times to maximise their physical output. But it is a command-and-control approach from the Push era that doesn’t fit well with information and knowledge work. Such work would be disrupted by enforced rests during the day but people still need to take breaks, mentally as well as physically. More importantly, information and knowledge work do not have the luxury (or limitation) of a production schedule where flexibility and scope are restricted by scarce resources. Quite the opposite is usually the case. Organisations dependent on intellectual capital need to create an environment that trusts people to think and decide as they go along, to change ‘the plan’ if it isn’t working or when the opportunity arises to improve it, to take brain breaks and gossip. Interruptions are an essential part of real-time business. They often represent continual adjustments to activities that reflect changing demands and priorities, as well as chance conversations that discover new problems and solutions.
There’s no doubting that interruptions have an impact on productivity, but that impact can be controlled to limit negative effects and maximise potential benefits. Statements such as ‘interruptions are costing the US economy $588 billion per year’ lead to knee-jerk reactions that focus only on one side of the coin.
*I’m referring to factories who observe human rights and employment laws
Source: ‘Brainwave boogie-woogie‘, New Scientist Magazine, 24 December 2005
|Waveband name||Frequency (Hz)||Associated with|
|Slow waves||below 1||Preparing to move a muscle|
|Delta waves||1 to 3||Deep sleep|
|Theta waves||3 to 7||Drowsiness, trance states and early sleep|
|Alpha waves||7 to 12||Relaxed but awake|
|Beta waves||12 to 30||Anxious thinking, focused activity and REM sleep|
|Gamma waves||above 30||Learning, memory formation and perception|
Posted on site under Brain Science