Multi Tasking Presentation

8/8/2019 Multi Tasking Presentation

1/18

Supporting multi-tasking of activities

Dr. Vctor M. GonzlezInteractive Systems Design Group

University of Manchester

[email protected]


2/18

Overview

> Some characteristics of multi-tasking

> Office work: multi-tasking research

> Sphere Juggler


3/18

Information workers have to cope with the

demands emerging by the multiple activities theyare engaged in.

Current designs of information technology do notprovide a comprehensive support for themanagement of activities.

There is a lack of comprehensive understanding ofthe phenomenon ofmanaging multiple activities.

Challenges to support Multi-tasking


4/18

Office work: Multi-tasking researchThe area of study:

Personal activity management

Modern information workers

The approach taken

Systematic observation of 36 information workers asthey conducted their activities in the workplace

Interviews to discuss various aspects of thephenomenon, as well as reflective accounts aboutobservations

Informants included software developers, financialanalysts, support engineers, projects leaders and

managers.


5/18

Office work: Multi-tasking research

Actions% entire

dayAvg. Time/Day

(sd)Avg. Time/ Action

(sd)

Using phone 7.6 0:39:48 (0:29:10) 0:03:02 (0:01:28)

Using e-mail 8.3 0:43:31 (0:20:27) 0:02:04 (0:00:42)

Using PCs 27.8 2:26:21 (1:08:23) 0:02:30 (0:00:45)

Using paper documents 6.6 0:34:51 (0:25:10) 0:01:50 (0:00:52)

Using other tools 0.8 0:04:02 (0:03:55) 0:01:15 (0:00:43)

Talking through the walls 1.7 0:08:46 (0:10:29) 0:01:06 (0:01:14)Talking to others in own cubicle 8.3 0:43:45 (0:29:37) 0:04:29 (0:02:49)

Formal meetings 14.3 1:15:21 (1:00:12) 0:42:56 (0:19:11)

Talking to others in other cubicles 12.4 1:05:24 (0:37:40) 0:08:21 (0:03:27)

Personal 11.2 0:59:11 (0:26:13) 0:33:32 (0:27:40)

Unknown 1.0 0:05:15 (0:08:59) 0:05:09 (0:09:05)All actions except Formalmeetings, Personal andUnknown

73.5 0:48:19 (0:53:05) 0:03:05 (0:02:51)

All actions total 100% 0:47:51 (0:51:48) 0:09:40 (0:17:19)

Average continuous time spent on actions before switching


6/18


The analysis was oriented toward understanding howactions were related to other actions around practical

units of work: working spheres

Phone call with client+

Meeting with developer

+Composing e-mail message

=

Clients problem with system

Moving beyond actions: the need for a notion


7/18


8/18

Office work: Multi-tasking researchAverage no. working spheres and segment for all informants

Type of workingsphere

Avg. #. W.S.per day (sd)

Avg. Time/W.S.

per segment

(sd)

Avg. Total Time/W.S.per day (sd)

Central9.31

(4.99)

0:12:16

(0:03:56)

0:43:21

(0:19:38)

Peripheral 2.90(1.63)

0:05:34(0:03:43)

0:08:18(0:06:06)

All12.22

(5.30)

0:10:29

(0:02:51)

0:33:58

(0:12:04)


9/18


Consolidation of information from many sources

Strategies to manage activities

People gain an overview of their working spheres at the

beginning of the day/week and update it as conditionschange


10/18

Office work: Multi-tasking researchConstant renewal of overviews: different perspectives

Global: provide major summaries of the work

Local: help manage the day-to-day things

Global perspective Local perspective


11/18

Our approach: Sphere JugglerPersonal Activity Management

The approach: Sphere juggler

Initial system to support activityswitching and context recovery

Aggregation of resources aroundworking spheres (emails, URLs,documents, contacts)

Implementation: Windows XP and MSOutlook


12/18

Centralized Sphere Management

Highly CustomizableQuick Sphere Switching

Stepper Learning Curve

Spheres space association

Document Monitoring

Active Spheres

Open Docs

Quick Sphere Targeting Drag & Drop enabled

PIM Integration

Our approach: Sphere Juggler


13/18

ScenarioOur approach: Sphere Juggler


14/18


15/18


16/18


17/18

Our approach: Sphere JugglerPersonal Activity Management

PDA VersionIntegration with Whiteboard

Medical Interns


18/18

Documents

Multi Tasking Presentation