[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Electronic Cancers
- To: <marcs@xanadu>, <us@xanadu>
- Subject: Re: Electronic Cancers
- From: Jeff Crilly -- "jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 18:21:25 PST
> From: marcs@xanadu (Marc Stiegler)
> Message-Id: <8911280140.AA15220@xanadu>
> To: us@xanadu
> Subject: Electronic Cancers
> Status: R
> ... They had 2 40-person teams,
> drawn randomly from the same group of workers, tackle the same
> report-writing task. The only observable difference between the
> 2 groups was that one group had electronic mail, whereas the
> other group had to rely on older, less modern tools. Each group
> had to write a report that would advise people on the verge of
> retirement on how to plan for their futures.
> The good news is that the electronic team was very pleased with
> its results--there was a great deal of job satisfaction.
> The bad news is the electronic team's product. The electronic
> team created a 70 page report, mostly in the form of
> tables. The manual-work group, by contrast, created a 15 page
> report, mostly in the form of anecdotes.
I am curious if the experimenters alloted the same time for both
groups. Or if they even specified a time limit for creating the report.
I would expect that if one reduces the amount of time one
can spend developing the group-report, then the email-based group
would excel. Better yet, give the groups an unreasonable amount of time.
After all, the reason we use computers is to do things faster and
better; not just better, right?