skip to main content
research-article

To Plan or Not to Plan? A Mixed-Methods Diary Study Examining When, How and Why Knowledge Work Planning is Inaccurate

Published:05 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Reliable and accurate planning is essential for modern knowledge workers. However, there is limited insight about when, how and why planning is inaccurate, and the circumstances in which those inaccuracies are troublesome. To investigate this, we asked 20 academics to keep a diary for a single work day. They estimated the duration of the tasks they wanted to achieve at the start of the day and noted down in detail the tasks they actually achieved during the day. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to complement this diary data. The diaries showed that some tasks, such as email and coding, were more susceptible to time underestimation bias while other tasks, such as writing and planning, were more susceptible to time overestimation bias in planning. Based on interviews, a typology of common reasons for delays in planned daily work is presented. It suggests that vague and optimistic planning leads to the observed discrepancy between planned and actual work. Finally, interviews suggested that participants adopted four planning strategies that vary in the frequency of planning, from minimal planning to daily, weekly and multi-level planning. We close by discussing ways support systems for accurate planning can be better designed for different use cases.

References

  1. Jakob E Bardram. 1997. Plans as situated action: an activity theory approach to workflow systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, 17--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jakob E Bardram and Thomas Riisgaard Hansen. 2010. Why the plan doesn?t hold: a study of situated planning, articulation and coordination work in a surgical ward. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 331--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Victoria Bellotti, Brinda Dalal, Nathaniel Good, Peter Flynn, Daniel G Bobrow, and Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2004. What a to-do: studies of task management towards the design of a personal task list manager. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 735--742.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Joseph D Blackburn, Gary D Scudder, and Luk N VanWassenhove. 1996. Improving speed and productivity of software development: a global survey of software developers. IEEE transactions on software engineering 22, 12 (1996), 875--885.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ann E Blandford and Thomas RG Green. 2001. Group and individual time management tools: what you get is not what you need. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5, 4 (2001), 213--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Claus Bossen and Randi Markussen. 2010. Infrastructuring and Ordering Devices in Health Care: Medication Plans and Practices on a HospitalWard. Comput. Supported Coop.Work 19, 6 (Dec. 2010), 615--637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606- 010--9131-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Adam Bradley, Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox, and Jon Bird. 2013. How to Manage Your Inbox: Is a Once a Day Strategy Best?. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (BCS-HCI '13). BCS Learning Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, Article Article 20, 6 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Roger Buehler and Dale Griffin. 2015. The planning fallacy: When plans lead to optimistic forecasts. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Roger Buehler, Dale Griffin, and Johanna Peetz. 2010. The planning fallacy: Cognitive, motivational, and social origins. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 43. Elsevier, 1--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Justin Cheng, Jaime Teevan, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Michael S Bernstein. 2015. Break it down: A comparison of macro-and microtasks. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4061--4064.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Brigitte JC Claessens, Wendelien Van Eerde, Christel G Rutte, and Robert A Roe. 2010. Things to do today...: A daily diary study on task completion at work. Applied Psychology 59, 2 (2010), 273--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. E Wagner Egger and I Negotiating Temporal Orders. [n.d.]. The Case of Collaborative Time-Management in a Surgery Clinic. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (JCSCW) 1 ([n. d.]), 255--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Margery Eldridge and William Newman. 1996. Agenda benders: modelling the disruptions caused by technology failures in the workplace. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 219--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Morten Fjeld, Kristina Lauche, Martin Bichsel, Fred Voorhorst, Helmut Krueger, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2002. Physical and virtual tools: Activity theory applied to the design of groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 11, 1--2 (2002), 153--180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Darryl K Forsyth and Christopher DB Burt. 2008. Allocating time to future tasks: The effect of task segmentation on planning fallacy bias. Memory & cognition 36, 4 (2008), 791--798.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ravi S Gajendran and David A Harrison. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of applied psychology 92, 6 (2007), 1524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Victor M. González and Gloria Mark. 2004. ?Constant, Constant, Multi-Tasking Craziness?: Managing MultipleWorking Spheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 113--120. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985707Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Peter Green and Denise Skinner. 2005. Does time management training work? An evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development 9, 2 (2005), 124--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mona Haraty, Joanna McGrenere, and Charlotte Tang. 2015. How and why personal task management behaviors change over time. In Proceedings of the 41st Graphics Interface Conference. 147--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mona Haraty, Joanna McGrenere, and Charlotte Tang. 2016. How personal task management differs across individuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 88 (2016), 13--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mona Haraty, Diane Tam, Shathel Haddad, Joanna McGrenere, and Charlotte Tang. 2012. Individual differences in personal task management: a field study in an academic setting. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2012. 35--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jing Jin and Laura A Dabbish. 2009. Self-interruption on the computer: a typology of discretionary task interleaving. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1799--1808.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1977. Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Technical Report. Decisions and Designs Inc Mclean Va.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Everlyne Kimani, Kael Rowan, Daniel McDuff, Mary Czerwinski, and Gloria Mark. 2019. A Conversational Agent in Support of Productivity and Wellbeing at Work. In 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). IEEE, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Sander Koole and Mascha van't Spijker. 2000. Overcoming the planning fallacy through willpower: effects of implementation intentions on actual and predicted task-completion times. European Journal of Social Psychology 30, 6 (2000), 873--888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Justin Kruger and Matt Evans. 2004. If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, 5 (2004), 586--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Therese Hoff Macan. 1994. Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of applied psychology 79, 3 (1994), 381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Andrew K MacLeod, Emma Coates, and Jacquie Hetherton. 2008. Increasing well-being through teaching goal-setting and planning skills: Results of a brief intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, 2 (2008), 185--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Gloria Mark, Shamsi T Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, and Paul Johns. 2014. Bored mondays and focused afternoons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3025--3034.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Gloria Mark, Shamsi T Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, Paul Johns, Akane Sano, and Yuliya Lutchyn. 2016. Email duration, batching and self-interruption: Patterns of email use on productivity and stress. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1717--1728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. André N Meyer, Thomas Fritz, Gail C Murphy, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2014. Software developers? perceptions of productivity. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 19--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. André N Meyer, Gail C Murphy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Thomas Fritz. 2019. Enabling Good Work Habits in Software Developers through Reflective Goal-Setting. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Kjetil Moløkken and Magne Jørgensen. 2003. A review of surveys on software effort estimation. (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. William M Newman. 2004. Busy days: exposing temporal metrics, problems and elasticities through diary studies. In CHI 2004 Workshop on Temporal Issues in Work. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Cal Newport. 2016. Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world. Hachette UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Johanna Peetz, Roger Buehler, and Anne Wilson. 2010. Planning for the near and distant future: How does temporal distance affect task completion predictions? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, 5 (2010), 709--720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Ilaria Redaelli and Antonella Carassa. 2018. New Perspectives on Plans: Studying Planning as an Instance of Instructed Action. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27, 1 (2018), 107--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lawrence J Sanna, Craig D Parks, Edward C Chang, and Seth E Carter. 2005. The Hourglass Is Half Full or Half Empty: Temporal Framing and the Group Planning Fallacy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 9, 3 (2005), 173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Kjeld Schmidt and Carla Simonee. 1996. Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 5, 2--3 (1996), 155--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Lucy Suchman and Lucy A Suchman. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Lucy A Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Christine J Syrek, Oliver Weigelt, Corinna Peifer, and Conny H Antoni. 2017. Zeigarnik's sleepless nights: How unfinished tasks at the end of the week impair employee sleep on the weekend through rumination. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22, 2 (2017), 225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Benjamin Tag, Andrew W Vargo, Aman Gupta, George Chernyshov, Kai Kunze, and Tilman Dingler. 2019. Continuous alertness assessments: Using EOG glasses to unobtrusively monitor fatigue levels In-The-Wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Kevin E Thomas, Stephen E Newstead, and Simon J Handley. 2003. Exploring the time prediction process: The effects of task experience and complexity on prediction accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 17, 6 (2003), 655--673.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryen W White and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2019. Task duration estimation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 636--644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. To Plan or Not to Plan? A Mixed-Methods Diary Study Examining When, How and Why Knowledge Work Planning is Inaccurate

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!