I recently reorganized my office and wound up with an extra monitor. Since “everybody” swears by dual monitors (or more) I thought I’d give it a shot. Much to my surprise I found the extra monitor distracting and somewhat annoying. After using the second monitor for a couple of weeks to see if it would grow on me, I finally dumped it.
This will probably stir up vigorous protests, but in thinking about it, I realized that dual monitors is a special case of multi-tasking. While I can see certain cases where it would be useful, in general I think people are kidding themselves if they think they are being more productive when multi-tasking. Some exceptions include things like sending emails on your Blackberry during boring meetings (which by definition aren’t very productive anyway), or having multiple documents displayed side by side when you are trying to consolidate them.
I did a post last year about a Stanford study that shows that when people try to multi-task, they do each “task” less well than if they worked on one thing at a time. So while you may get “more” work done, it is very likely to be of a lower quality. Is the trade-off worth it? The point seems to be worth repeating, so here it is:
The issue of multitasking gets sporadic attention – most recently on the subject of texting while driving (which could also be construed as a death wish). But it is not new. I always recall my driving instructor many years ago saying that you shouldn’t try to make out while driving because you couldn’t pay proper attention either to the road or to the girl.
One of the most recent studies, done at Stanford, is the one that many recent news stories are based on. It shows that:
The fact of the matter is that “multitasking” in a real sense (or as a computer would understand it) does not really exist. What multitasking really amounts to is that you divide up your time into more or less small “slices” and simply switch rapidly from one “slice” to another. You are still doing one thing at a time, but switching back and forth in rapid succession. So if you “multitask” by doing four things in twelve minutes, you actually focus (for example) on each one of them three times in one minute “slices.” For better or worse, human beings simply do not have quad core (or even dual core) brains.
This understanding is behind one of the classic recipes for ways in which lawyers can more efficiently manage their workflow is to set aside one or two periods in a day to deal with email, and to turn off your email during the rest of the day to avoid distraction.
However, this sort of advice runs counter to the current obsession with multitasking, texting, twittering and instant answers to email. Thus the growth of 2-monitor (or even 3-monitor) setups is due to the desire to keep more and more programs open at the same time and swap back and forth between them. Similarly, people who run stock tickers or sports tickers, not to mention Instant Messaging clients on their desktops are just inviting interruption and distraction.
Multi-monitor setups can be very useful if you regularly work on tasks that involve consulting multiple sources – but just having your email open on a right-hand screen is an invitation to disruption and lack of productivity.
To increase productivity you have to reduce the tendency toward rampant multitasking. Or, to put it another way, instead of dividing up your time into “slices” of 2 minutes, and switching back and forth, try to divide up your time into bigger slices of 15 minutes, half hour, etc. In some cases you may not be able to control this. There are phone calls you absolutely have to take. However, in others – only dealing with email twice a day in segments of a half hour at a time or answering all your phone calls at the end of the day, for example – you may be able to bring at least a small amount of order to the chaos of multitasking. This approach is embodied by an attorney who is in a meeting or working on drafting an important document and tells his assistant to “hold my calls.”
In short, what the Stanford study cited above shows, is that people who “multitask” do each one of the tasks less well than someone to takes the same amount of time but does them one at a time. So yes, most of what passes for multitasking is inefficient and counterproductive – and will lead to performing each task less well than if it were done as a single task all at once.
This will probably stir up vigorous protests, but in thinking about it, I realized that dual monitors is a special case of multi-tasking. While I can see certain cases where it would be useful, in general I think people are kidding themselves if they think they are being more productive when multi-tasking. Some exceptions include things like sending emails on your Blackberry during boring meetings (which by definition aren’t very productive anyway), or having multiple documents displayed side by side when you are trying to consolidate them.
I did a post last year about a Stanford study that shows that when people try to multi-task, they do each “task” less well than if they worked on one thing at a time. So while you may get “more” work done, it is very likely to be of a lower quality. Is the trade-off worth it? The point seems to be worth repeating, so here it is:
The issue of multitasking gets sporadic attention – most recently on the subject of texting while driving (which could also be construed as a death wish). But it is not new. I always recall my driving instructor many years ago saying that you shouldn’t try to make out while driving because you couldn’t pay proper attention either to the road or to the girl.
One of the most recent studies, done at Stanford, is the one that many recent news stories are based on. It shows that:
“People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information do not pay attention, control their memory or switch from one job to another as well as those who prefer to complete one task at a time.”
The fact of the matter is that “multitasking” in a real sense (or as a computer would understand it) does not really exist. What multitasking really amounts to is that you divide up your time into more or less small “slices” and simply switch rapidly from one “slice” to another. You are still doing one thing at a time, but switching back and forth in rapid succession. So if you “multitask” by doing four things in twelve minutes, you actually focus (for example) on each one of them three times in one minute “slices.” For better or worse, human beings simply do not have quad core (or even dual core) brains.
This understanding is behind one of the classic recipes for ways in which lawyers can more efficiently manage their workflow is to set aside one or two periods in a day to deal with email, and to turn off your email during the rest of the day to avoid distraction.
However, this sort of advice runs counter to the current obsession with multitasking, texting, twittering and instant answers to email. Thus the growth of 2-monitor (or even 3-monitor) setups is due to the desire to keep more and more programs open at the same time and swap back and forth between them. Similarly, people who run stock tickers or sports tickers, not to mention Instant Messaging clients on their desktops are just inviting interruption and distraction.
Multi-monitor setups can be very useful if you regularly work on tasks that involve consulting multiple sources – but just having your email open on a right-hand screen is an invitation to disruption and lack of productivity.
To increase productivity you have to reduce the tendency toward rampant multitasking. Or, to put it another way, instead of dividing up your time into “slices” of 2 minutes, and switching back and forth, try to divide up your time into bigger slices of 15 minutes, half hour, etc. In some cases you may not be able to control this. There are phone calls you absolutely have to take. However, in others – only dealing with email twice a day in segments of a half hour at a time or answering all your phone calls at the end of the day, for example – you may be able to bring at least a small amount of order to the chaos of multitasking. This approach is embodied by an attorney who is in a meeting or working on drafting an important document and tells his assistant to “hold my calls.”
In short, what the Stanford study cited above shows, is that people who “multitask” do each one of the tasks less well than someone to takes the same amount of time but does them one at a time. So yes, most of what passes for multitasking is inefficient and counterproductive – and will lead to performing each task less well than if it were done as a single task all at once.
I could not fuctional as efficient as I do today when I am using triple monitors so I must recommend you all, just try it and you will understand...
Posted by: http://www.scanshell-store.com/software_s2c.htm | May 15, 2012 at 08:35 AM
I 100% agree with Bill Winterberg. Dual or triple monitors are very useful in situations where reference material is needed to complete the main task at hand.
Posted by: comment system | July 29, 2011 at 06:43 AM
Valuable article about dual monitors and multitasking !! And if I talk about the "Benefit of multiple monitors", then I am high;y agreed with Tom Rowe. Certainly, Benefits are same one.
Posted by: records management | July 20, 2011 at 07:24 AM
Interesting article about multi-monitor for lawuers here - http://www.actualtools.com/articles/detail.php?ID=1282
Posted by: Fray | February 20, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Many computer applications such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, or Flash have so many palettes and windows that are auxiliary to the main window, but needed constantly, that it is really useful to have them open side by side on dual monitors. When web programming, I like to have my code document in one monitor and the browser in the other, to preview the finished product. It just isn't a valid assumption that multiple monitors means multitasking.
Posted by: Walter | October 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM
I'm not an attorney, but I am the Technology Director for a non-profit agency. My assistant and I both use dual monitor configurations. On my side, I use Excel on one monitor to prepare vouchers, for which there are sidebars where I input data from our agency phone bills. On the other monitor I have Adobe Reader displaying the electronic invoice. This setup is extremely efficient, as opposed to the Alt-Tab method. As for my Outlook, it remains minimized until I hear HAL telling me there is a message.
Posted by: Michael Fay | May 28, 2010 at 10:18 PM
I echo the comments above. People who don't find much use for multiple-monitor setups tend to still use paper a lot. If you take away the hard-copy casebooks, treatises, and notepads, it is hard to imagine being as productive with a single-monitor set up, unless you have a very large, landscape monitor where you can comfortably view multiple windows side by side. Having to ALT-TAB switch between the document I'm drafting and my reference sources is far more distracting than having each open in its own monitor, something I am reminded of every time I'm traveling with my single-monitor laptop.
Posted by: Paul C. Easton | May 24, 2010 at 01:35 AM
Dual (and triple) monitors are very useful in situations where reference material is needed to complete the main task at hand. I consult with CPAs that thrive in triple monitor configurations. In their work environment, the middle screen typically contains the active tax return, the left screen displays the taxpayer's source forms, and the right screen displays the IRS Instruction or Publication materials.
I firmly agree that email should never be displayed continuously on a second or third monitor. Ideally, email programs shouldn't be open at all while other tasks are being completed.
Posted by: Bill Winterberg | May 20, 2010 at 01:08 AM
I agree with Tom Rowe. The benefit of multiple monitors is the same, in the old days, of having several case books open when drafting a pleading or brief. If I am answering interrogatories or preparing a motion for summary judgment, it is enormously beneficial to have another screen with the interrogatories themselves or the opposing party's deposition transcript. Dual monitors are beneficial for many single tasks.
Posted by: Steve Hurm | May 17, 2010 at 04:10 PM
While I agree with most of your comments on the loss of productivity of multitasking, multiple monitors doesn't have to mean multitasking. For example, with our bankruptcy system, BKexpress, it is not uncommon for firms to need to have three programs open to prepare a petition - Time Matters/BKexpress where the list of scanned documents is located, Adobe for displaying the documents, and the petition prep software into which data from the scanned document is entered. Having all three visible on two or three monitors is vastly more productive than using Alt-Tab to switch back and forth. In this scenario, the end user is performing a single task - preparing a petition. It's just that it requires input from multiple applications. That isn't multitasking, and is a much more efficient way to work.
All that being said, I, too, fear for the future of the Union when people think they can do 10 things at once with any acceptable level of quality.
Posted by: Tom Rowe | May 13, 2010 at 10:05 PM