Response to Basex on "2008 as the Year of Information Overload"

Basex, an East Coast business research firm, has named the problem of the year as “information overload”. By this they are referring to the growing number of communication and collaboration channels that people are required to work with on a daily basis, and say that the duplication of information across channels, and the cost of interruptions from this increasing plethora of tools is costing the US economy $650 billion a year in lost productivity (see New York Times Blog), which is calculated based on interruptions from phone calls, emails and IMs consumming 28% of a knowledge workers day (see eWeek).

I think the term that they’ve used is the wrong one for the problem, and I also think that their analysis reflects a lack of understanding about how knowledge workers work. Let’s take each in turn.

What’s The Real Problem Here?
The real problem is the proliferation of new standalone tools that become additive to existing ways of communication and collaboration. When IM is added to email and then comes wiki work and blog reading, people are forced to deal with new places to get and work with information. These tools are often additive; when IM is introduced, some email traffic shifts naturally to IM, thus taking away from email, but just because you are online and apparently available, additional conversations take place that otherwise would not have happened. And, equally, conversations that might have taken 3 minutes by telephone increase to 10 or 15 minutes by IM, because of multi-tasking and the slower rate at which people type compared to talking.

Back in 2004 I wrote about this proliferation of end-user tools for communication and collaboration, and how this would lead to bad things for end-users, and now we are seeing it happen. Vendors of collaboration tools need to do a better job of delivering tools that integrate currently disparate communication channels into a single integrated client, and auto-arranging different streams of communication into related project groupings. Rationalization and elimination of tools should be a big focus for IT. There should only be one IM platform in any organization, not multiples. People shouldn’t have to deal with multiple collaborative workspace products on a daily basis; just one interface that renders different tools within an integrated whole.

That new tools are additive rather than reductionary is a problem in most organizations, although interestingly Groove Networks claimed the opposite. Before they were purchased by Microsoft, Groove claimed that the usage of its own tools internally had resulted in a migration of communication and interaction largely away from email and into a variety of Groove shared spaces. That left very little email to deal with, and even then, there was a clear and easy way to shift email from Outlook or Notes into a Groove space. The tool was eliminative, not additive.

So, in my view, Basex has chosen the wrong term for 2008; rather than the year of information overload, it should be the year of communication coordination complexity. Or the year of urgency addiction, but according to the problem they are trying to describe, it’s not “information overload”.

Does the Analysis Stack Up?
I think, too, that Basex portrays a lack of understanding in saying that dealing with email and IM takes users away from their “primary tasks”, or that dealing with interruptions from phone calls, email and IM consumes 28% of the users day, and that this is thus lost productivity. Most of us have to work with others to get our jobs done and to move forward the work of the organization. For this we need to communicate. In past business realities we would meet in person, but in a world that is transacting business at an increased rate and where the people we work with on joint projects are not in the same location, much of our interaction becomes mediated by written text. And so while knowledge workers have primary tasks to do, the sending and receiving of email, or the having of a IM conversation with another, or answering a phone call from a colleague, or keeping up with blogs related to our work … all of these activities are core things to primary tasks.

As a related point, if you ask senior managers what they think about interruptions, many will say that they don’t see a constant stream of people and interaction requests as interruptions but rather as their work. That is why they are there … to talk to people, to coordinate with others, to learn what’s going on.

Let’s consider the robustness of the analysis in another way. If phone calls, email and IM are the problem, let’s get rid of them. People would therefore, according to the Basex logic, suddenly be able to reclaim 28% of their daily work time, and thus the US economy would be $650 billion better off in terms of reclaimed productivity. Wouldn’t that rather result in the grinding to a halt of the whole US economy in short order?

The Basex thinking does not leave me convinced.

What Does Dealing with Information Overload Look Like?
If we broaden the analysis and thinking away from interruptions to dealing with information overload true and proper, what do we get?

One thing is the need for people and teams to get better at sharing knowledge that has been synthesized rather than merely being repeated.

Have we taught knowledge workers the process of how to take a collection of data points and create a synthesis of those?

Do people know how to build understanding over time by comparing and contrasting new information against what they already know?

Do people have the technology tools at their disposal to do this effectively?

Or do we merely expect that people will create “folders” of related information, at the page or article level, but never do the hard work of integrating the different points of view? It is hard work — it requires the embrace of effective habits of personal knowledge management, and the continual seeking out of new and divergent viewpoints against which to test our current knowledge.

Among other things, this is what dealing with “information overload” is really about.

What’s your take on the Basex study?

0 thoughts on “Response to Basex on "2008 as the Year of Information Overload"

  1. I am charged with looking into the problem of information overload at my company, based in Germany but with worldwide operations and tens of thousands of knowledge workers.
    As part of this, I have been reading a tremendous amount of literature on the topic (including what Basex and others have published).
    I must ask, have you read only the articles about Basex’s research or did you read their reports on the topic?
    To me, the articles seem very superficial but I have found the research reports to have useful informations.

  2. While your point about the abundance of uncoordinated messaging tools makes good sense, I don’t think this is identical to, or even the main root cause of, information overload. To wit, ten years ago we only had email, and we were already in messaging overload up to our necks. The causes of the problem also include the large volume (30% of traffic, from the data we saw at Intel) of unnecessary intra-company email messages; messages that are ill-written and therefore slow to read; poor Inbox processing practices; and of course the “dark side” – messaging that compensates for lack of trust, CYA, and so forth.
    The fact that email and other technologies are crucial to doing work is indisputable, but hardly negates Basex’s argument – again, our data shows 10% of the time that goes into email is spent on those 30% unnecessary messages; the 90% is part of work, but the 10% is still a waste of resources, and contributes to the lost productivity Basex is talking about. Even a good thing can have bad elements, and we should have enough discrimination to eliminate the bad while retaining the good…
    For the data I mention: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/zeldes/index.html

  3. Michael, I think you’ve nailed it. All interruptions are not bad. Determining which are unnecessary requires a complex value judgment involving a closed system (value to interrupter + value to interruptee) view that any survey or journaling study will have difficulty measuring. I have blogged on this issue a number of times, including here:
    http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/some-clarifications-to-posting-on-interruptions/
    I posted similar questions about the study at http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/unnecessary-interruptions-are-bad-but-650-billion-i-doubt-it/
    By the way, the link that Nathan from Basex gave is not working for me at the moment so, Nathan, if you’re reading this, please post up a new working link.

  4. 2008’s Problem of the Year: Information Overload

    OK, so still catching up on the blogging front, but I’m getting there. At the end of 2007, analyst firm Basex predicted the biggest problem of the year for 2008: Information Overload. Well, you won’t find any disagreement here –

  5. Put as simply as possible, people are asked to deal with more incoming information than they can handle – that to me is information overload. So, I definitely agree with the Basex definition of the problem.
    Which leads to some of the topics you mention. People don’t have the tools to deal with the volume and nature of inbound information flow they need to deal with. Most of the communications tools are designed to deal with singular pieces of information within some specific silo. There’s no question that a next generation of tools that deals with information at higher levels and with richer context is definitely required to address information overload.
    As far as interruptions go, they go hand in hand with information overload. Numerous studies have shown the measurable cost when people context shift – something that happens more and more as they get more and more overloaded with information. Tools and strategies to help people focus in the midst of all these interruptions are critical. Yes, these interruptions are often real work. But it’s the volume of them (the information overload) that prevents people from dealing with them in a productive manner.
    Some add’l thoughts on my blog: http://www.emaildashboard.com/2008/02/2008s-problem-o.html

  6. Hi Michael, I agree with you: the Basex research leaves some open questions, however its an interesting way of trying to put it into numbers, i.e. quantify the cost of information overload.
    However, I think that the real costs of IO are actually much higher: http://www.managingio.com/2008/02/17/the-real-cost-of-information-overload/
    The blog is new and entirely devoted to information overload – if you have any suggestions or comments they are very much appreciated!
    Cheers, Nicolas

  7. Solving the $650bn problem requires a new, high-level workplace tool – a Human Interaction Management System (HIMS), that understands human collaboration and leverages email et al to support it.
    A HIMS lets you negotiate next steps with colleagues in your own and other organizations, using a clear visual representation of everyone’s responsibilities and commitments, then helps you execute your own part in these “Stories”.
    The reference implementation of a HIMS is the free desktop program HumanEdj. If you want a glimpse of the future, check out the walkthrough at http://www.humanedj.com/faq#Tutorials.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.