You want to be perceived as a good innovation project member, to be appreciated for your achievements – and just to safeguard that notion some of what you do leads to a success in time – you do multiple projects in parallel. But is this really efficient and effective? Check out Bengt Järrehult’s somewhat mathematical look at multi-tasking, where the exercise of putting numbers in leads to a result that may surprise you.
Two projects, A and B, can run in two different ways, both demanding ten weeks of full-time work. It seems to be virtually irrelevant whether we run one week with A and then one week with B, etc. (multi-tasking) or if we complete A before starting with B (single-tasking). In both cases we are ready after 20 weeks (see fig 1). But if we calculate the average time per project, using multi-tasking we get 19.5 weeks per project because A is ready after 19 weeks and B after 20 weeks, i.e. average 19.5 weeks. If we run single-tasking, A is ready to be launched to earn money after 10 weeks (see the red flags) while B is ready for launch after 20 weeks, both calculated from time = 0. The Average time per project is now only 15 weeks (as (10+20)/2 = 15). Therefore multi-tasking decreases the efficiency 30%! (as (19.5 -15)/15 =0.30). Do you agree?
To read the original article: Can Multi-tasking Result in More than 60% Longer Project Time? | Innovation Management
