IT@Intel Blog

Previous Next
32


Since the previous post in October there has been much interest in our two pilots aiming to reduce information overload; and I've responded to all of them with the quintessential engineering attitude of "we'll have to wait until the data is in". Well, the data is finally in, and now I can reward your patience and share the main points.

You will recall we were running two pilots:

1. "Quiet Time" on Tuesday morning.

In this experiment 300 engineers and managers, located in two US sites (Austin, TX and Chandler, AZ), agreed to minimize interruptions and distractions every Tuesday morning. During these periods they had all set their email and IM clients to "offline", forwarded their phones to voice mail, avoided setting up meetings, and isolated themselves from "visitors" by putting up a "Do not disturb" sign at their doorway. The purpose was to see the effect of 4 hours of contiguous "thinking time".

On the whole, the 7-month pilot returned markedly positive results. It has been successful in improving employee effectiveness, efficiency and quality of life for numerous employees in diverse job roles. 45% of post-pilot survey respondents had found it effective as is, and 71% recommended we consider extending it to other groups, possibly after applying some modifications.

As expected, this is not a matter where "one size fits all": not all people found this a desirable practice, depending also on their specific job roles. But an interesting finding is that Quiet Time is useful to different people for different reasons. Some people need it to concentrate on creative tasks, as we had predicted, but even people whose work involves ongoing interaction with others found the periodic "breathing space" beneficial in restoring balance and getting back in control of an otherwise hectic work routine. One should, we learned, let each person decide how to use the quiet hours to best effect. A key success factor, however, is that people must realize that the "quiet" requirement is not absolute; when an urgent situations requires it, interruptions are permitted. Communicating this clearly was necessary halfway through the pilot.

2. "No Email Day" on the Friday.

It has been noted (and often ignored) that "No Email Day", or "Zero Email Friday", is a misnomer; but it has caught widely before we got to it and we kept the name. In reality, email is not forbidden on the Friday; the idea is to solve the problem where people send email to a coworker in the next cubicle rather than walk across the aisle and talk, by encouraging the use of face to face and telephone conversation in preference to email within an organic group, which in our case comprised 150 engineers and managers.

This pilot has achieved lower success than "Quiet Time", though 29% of respondents did find it effective, and 60% recommended we consider extending it to other groups. The issue, we found, is that there was a clear incompatibility of NED with the nature of work in the chosen pilot group, where many people are routinely away from their desks or in meetings much of the time. This renders asynchronous email the method of choice for connecting to people in the group. It is easy to conjecture that for NED to work better, it should be applied in teams that are not only collocated, but also tend to sit in their offices most of the day, so your coworker is predictably available to be spoken to synchronously when the need arises.

Our next steps will be to present these data to management and consider proliferation to other groups at Intel who might find either or both practices useful in the context of their work style.

Average User Rating
(3 ratings)


Add a comment Leave a comment on this blog post.
Jun 15, 2008 10:56 PM Reply Guest Les Karr

Nestle Corporation requires that there be NO meetings on Fridays. Friday is used to think and plan.
They also have a rule that during internal presentations--- you are allowed only one Powerpoint foil. If you can't express your ideas off of that foil-- the idea is probably too complex or has not had enough thought.

Jun 16, 2008 10:30 AM Reply Guest AnneM

I had heard about these kind of things being practiced by the design teams in Israel Design Center.
Have you compared your data with their experience as it would seem they are a fairly co-located team.

I work with lots of people who are off site. I attempt to use IM to get quick answers or see if they are available for a short phone call. We overlook the phone call and the power of the human voice.

Jun 16, 2008 10:39 AM Reply Guest Lucian Baker II

Excellent study and consistent with the psychological analysis of rats. By altering the social and physical environment, you get happier and longer-lived rats or, in our case, cubicle workers. We are not so different from them after all. :)

Jun 16, 2008 10:43 AM Reply Guest Mark Viers

Our group has adopted a quiet period for software developers from 10:00 to 3:00 every day. No project or group meetings are scheduled during this time. The quiet period acknowledges that an interruption of only a few seconds can cause developers to spend minutes "reloading" the information necessary to continue work. Project managers like myself are interruptable at any time because of the nature of our work.

Jun 16, 2008 11:29 AM Reply Guest Som

Interesting findings. Question: were participants allowed to use IM during the Quiet time or NED? A possible solution to the ineffectiveness of NED could be the use of IM. While it might seem that IM is more disruptive than email that is not necessarily true.

Jun 16, 2008 12:37 PM Reply Guest Adam Belnap

Interresting ideas. I think there is some promise to them. Ever thought about getting rid of email trains or being added to email train after the train has been traveling around the world in a couple languages?

Jun 16, 2008 12:49 PM Reply Guest Rick Zucker

People constantly talk about sending e-mail to someone right next door as a bad thing. But in this same blog post we are talking about interruptions and the need for undisturbed quiet time. It is not uncommon that sending e-mail to a person nearby is exactly the right thing to do. Sometimes I need an answer to a question in a couple of days. Why should I interrupt someone who is working to get an answer right now? We have been told numerous times about the cost to someone's focus of interruption and how long until they are productive again after the interruption. I do agree that some people need to go offline with e-mail more often, but the beauty of it is that the recipient can deal with it when convenient for them. I often tell my people that if e-mail is a problem to stay offline and only check it once an hour.

Jun 16, 2008 12:59 PM Reply Guest Michael Mirmak

Fantastic data and thanks for sharing! One potential barrier to reduction of same-group or same-site e-mail is the need for a "paper trail." Sending e-mail rather than having face-to-face communications may occur not because of a lack of effort but because e-mail has more solidity: it can printed, archived, reviewed and compared later with other statements, which voice communications simply do not allow. In our increasingly legalistic environment, "getting it in writing" carries an implies a level of provability and commitment to the answer that a hallway conversation doesn't.

Jun 16, 2008 1:01 PM Reply Guest Martin Vandepas

I'm curious what is the motivation for the no email day? You talk about the "problem" where people send emails ranther than communicate vocally. I dont see the problem. Is vocal communication more effective or efficient than email? Is it just the sense that we are drifting away from our interpersonal relationships in the workplace because the use of technology sometimes removes the need to have face to face communication?

Either way, sometimes I find it useful to send an email rather than talking to someone, even if the are nearby and available. And soemtimes I prefer to talk, or call, or IM. The point is that employees should have the freedom to communicate however they feel is most effective. There shouldn't be a mandate that certain days are for certain methods of communication.

Jun 16, 2008 1:28 PM Reply Guest Andy Robbins

What were the biggest challenges you faced introducing the Tue quiet time? For example how did you convince meeting owners outside of your direct sphere of influence to abide by your quiet time guideline?

Jun 16, 2008 3:37 PM Reply Guest Jason

I constantly tell people who stop by my cube (any day of the week) to send me an email detailing what they require of me, if I'm involved in the middle of a different task. I'm curious-- what is or will be the punishment for doing this if we adopt it? I like sending email to my neighbor if the question I have, or task I request doesn't need a full face-to-face interaction. Microsoft Infopath is a form program that I use often to request things (many times at the request of those doing the work...) are we now supposed to write a letter and send it by interoffice mail? Where I work, our groups are split up between two completely different campuses! I'm not going to drive from site to site, simply to request things from a co-worker.

I'm glad we spent all this time converting to a 100% e-company a while ago, only to revert back to what feels like pen/paper for 1 day out of the week. I completely feel that this is just a way to control how we work-- it doesn't feel right to me, and depending on how much this impacts my yearly review, I probably won't adopt this practice... but I guess Intel controls the money, and whoever controls the money, controls me, with respect to this job.

Jun 16, 2008 3:58 PM Reply Guest Toni Ferro

I work on a collocated XP software project where there was a LOT of unneccessary email floating around at the beginning of the project. We got some good advice from one of the lead developers who suggested we spend some time in the planning session talking about what emails were being sent and why.

Our team is collocated for a reason - to increase the speed of decision-making and issue resolution on our project. Sending emails (the new snail mail) just slows down the communication - emails can be misinterpreted or misunderstood causing lots of back and forth emails that would be handled in a conversation in seconds.

In the end we came up with these guidelines: 1st option - find the person you need and get your answer FTF (don't set up a meeting or send an email), 2nd - talk to the person on the phone, 3rd - IM them, and 4th ONLY if you can't find them and they aren't on IM - send an email.

It works GREAT - people spend less time "crafting" the perfect email and reading others emails and more time getting the project done!

There were some emails we identified as OK to send out - i.e. QA build is ready with specific fixes listed, planning session meeting invites, screen shots that can't be sent through IM, etc...

Jun 16, 2008 4:41 PM Reply Guest Anat Almog

Nice to see your name in Circuit. Ever since Intel started the telecomuting, I have been trying to set few hours on telecomute, and this is really working for me. I plan, I sumerize and coordinate several programs that I have for my team and my group. I truley belive everyone should find the way to focus within his working environment. I am not a big fan of 'making a rule for everyone' because I think that flexability is a key in todays business, but this might crete the awarness for the need to focus and concentrate in our working environment.

Jun 17, 2008 10:51 AM Reply Guest Jason

This is all interesting but I think part of the root cause of email overwhelm is due to the evolution of the response SLA within our culture. In my mind e-mail was designed for about a 24 hours SLA if not even a bit longer.... At intel we often use it as a substitute for a phone call (or page) .... over time folks feel tied to Outlook. We need to reset our culture to a reasonable responsiveness timeline. For Pete's sake, if you need something today pick up the phone.

Jun 17, 2008 11:00 AM Reply Guest Atlanta Realtor in response to: Jason

I think the no e-mail should be a mandatory thing. it would be good to be able to catch up on work and it would give you the ability to be organized for the following work week.

Jun 17, 2008 11:11 AM Reply Click to view John Simpson's profile John Simpson

I just heard a story on NPR related to this very topic, but with a twist. They were speaking with a company who assigns a "virtual dollar" amount to every email. Each person starts out the day with a fixed amount of money, with no way to add to it. Every message they send, they have to pay for, assigning higher value to more important items and less to the lesser. Each reply is the same way, takes money out of their account and shows the recipient how important the message is based on the amount assigned. When your account is empty, you can't send anything else. It also solves the problem of garbage forwarding, reply to all and other silly events that fill our in-box. And helps to push people to think about what they are doing in the email space.

Jun 17, 2008 8:01 PM Reply Guest Guy

This data, while being consistent with studies done in other working environments, flies directly in the face of the corporate proposal for new concept cubical furniture which reduces privacy, and thereby creates a more distracting environment.
Is this data being sent to the group doing the new cubical furniture study?

Jun 17, 2008 8:37 PM Reply Guest Neil Bradley

Wow... all of these studies and tests to force/test behavioral changes instead of the obvious solution to all of the problems these "solutions" are trying to solve - give everyone offices where they can shut the world out if need be.

Jun 18, 2008 11:44 AM Reply Guest Lynette in response to: John Simpson

Re: John Simpson's post: I think the practice of assigning a dollar value to each email is a GREAT idea. It would help people prioritize better, make better choices on how to communicate, and dramatically reduce the number of emails which are not productive (e.g., the "me too!" and the "smiley face" emails. I'm going to try this on my own to help me monitor my efficiency email usage.

Jun 18, 2008 2:43 PM Reply Guest Bob Sieglng

WOW! We now have official findings that prove what people have been saying for decades - "If they would just quit bugging me for a while I could actually get some work done!"
How about just blocking a chunk of time when you need it to get things done and having the self-discipline to follow through on the commitment to your own needs. Do we really need a scheduled time to take charge of our own lives? We are adults aren’t we?

Jun 18, 2008 5:47 PM Reply Guest Gordon Zaft

It's interesting that these two ideas are really opposites. NED would increase the number of interruptions and quite Tuesdays would decrease them.

I do agree that it is helpful to increase the F2F (or at least telephonic) interactions since it builds community and mutual understanding and respect. Not sure how to reconcile the conflicting goals of these two ideas.

Jun 18, 2008 7:36 PM Reply Guest Bryan Fullbright in response to: John Simpson

I think that's a good idea in general, except you have the dollar amounts reversed! The critical emails should be cheap, and the unnecessary/reply all/superthreads should be prohibitavely expensive. Otherwise, people will send many unnecessary mails instead of the critical tool updates, simply because the unneccesary mail is cheap.

Jun 18, 2008 9:31 PM Reply Click to view kenekaplan's profile kenekaplan

What if the email servers where turned off Friday at noon? If there was an emergency, people could call, sms, Twitter. But the idea is to know that Outlook is not used for exchanging information Friday afternoon local time.

Jun 19, 2008 9:18 PM Reply Guest Randy

Want to focus and don't want to be distracted by email? Don't open Outlook. Pretty simple pilot.

Jun 20, 2008 11:31 AM Reply Guest Ben

I have an idea: if you want to have "email free" time, click on the little box in the upper right hand corner of the Outlook window (the one with the 'x' in it). That seems like a simpler solution than a one size fits all approach.

Also helpful: if you want "meeting free" time, try declining meetings or scheduling blocks of "actual work" time. I do it everyday. Works wonders.

Before we go out and spend a lot of money creating eloborate solutions to our problems we should spend a few minutes looking for existing solutions (like 'off' buttons).

Jun 20, 2008 4:50 PM Reply Guest Doug in response to: kenekaplan

If the problem is information overload and/or too many interuptions, then shutting off email cannot help. Changing from one communication tool to another, shifts, but does not solve, the problem.

It is interesting to me to consider that it seems that email should be an order of magnitude easier to ignore than a phone call, which in turn should be an order of magnitude easier to ignore than a F2F conversation.

The problems we are trying to solve (too many interuptions or too much information) don't lend themselves to solutions that force people to use the "harder to ignore" communications processes.

I think the real solutions do not lie in getting people to communicate less (or even in different ways), but rather in learning how to more efficiently deal with, and process, the glut of information that inexorably continues to expand.

Jun 23, 2008 7:35 AM Reply Guest Chaps

IMHO, the above was a pointless exercise and was a complete waste of someone's time and company resources.

As some already pointed out, there was nothing new to this data... we've known this for a long time, i.e. F2F communications is best when something needs to be resolved effectively and efficiently, everybody needs a "Quiet Time" (or as some group had been practicing for a long time this so called "My Time"), etc.

It's really a pity that such things will (still) be presented to other management for consideration. The way I see it, it's more like you're telling managers how and what could work for their team when in fact each organization, big and small, already has something in place based on inputs by their own organization.

C'mmon, I thought we are an Innovative company.