skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300845acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Understanding Personal Productivity: How Knowledge Workers Define, Evaluate, and Reflect on Their Productivity

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Productivity tracking tools often determine productivity based on the time interacting with work-related applications. To deconstruct productivity's diverse and nebulous nature, we investigate how knowledge workers conceptualize personal productivity and delimit productive tasks in both work and non-work contexts. We report a 2-week diary study followed by a semi-structured interview with 24 knowledge workers. Participants captured productive activities and provided the rationale for why the activities were assessed to be productive. They reported a wide range of productive activities beyond typical desk-bound work-ranging from having a personal conversation with dad to getting a haircut. We found six themes that characterize the productivity assessment-work product, time management, worker's state, attitude toward work, impact & benefit, and compound task and identified how participants interleaved multiple facets when assessing their productivity. We discuss how these findings could inform the design of a comprehensive productivity tracking system that covers a wide range of productive activities.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper615p.mp4

mp4

4.5 MB

References

  1. David Allen. 2001. Getting Things Done : The Art of Stress-free Productivity. Viking, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold B. Bakker and Matthijs P. Bal. 2010. Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study Among Starting Teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83, 1 (mar 2010), 189--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Niall Bolger, Angelina Davis, and Eshkol Rafaeli. 2003. Diary Methods: Capturing Life as It Is Lived. Annual Review of Psychology 54, 1 (2003), 579--616.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jelmer P. Borst, Niels A. Taatgen, and Hedderik van Rijn. 2015. What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2971--2980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Arthur P. Brief and Ramon J. Aldag. 1975. Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: A Constructive Replication. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 2 (1975), 182--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eun Kyoung Choe, Saeed Abdullah, Mashfiqui Rabbi, Edison Thomaz, Daniel A Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D Abowd, Tanzeem Choudhury, James Fogarty, Bongshin Lee, Mark Matthews, and Julie A Kientz. 2017. Semi-Automated Tracking: A Balanced Approach for Self-Monitoring Applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing 16, 1 (Jan 2017), 74--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, Matthew Kay, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A. Kientz. 2015. SleepTight: Low-burden, Self-monitoring Technology for Capturing and Reflecting on Sleep Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Russell Clayton, Christopher Thomas, and Jack Smothers. 2015. How to do walking meetings right. Harvard Business Review (2015). https: //hbr.org/2015/08/how-to-do-walking-meetings-rightGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Derek Clements-Croome and Yamuna Kaluarachchi. 2000. Assessment and measurement of productivity. In Creating the Productive Work Place. E & FN Spon, Chapter 10, 129--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Codealike. 2018. Codealike: Powerful Metrics for High Performance Developers. (2018). https://codealike.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. 2004. A Diary Study of Task Switching and Interruptions. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '04). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Laura Dabbish, Gloria Mark, and Víctor M. González. 2011. Why Do I Keep Interrupting Myself?: Environment, Habit and Self-interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3127--3130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Thomas H Davenport. 2005. Thinking for A Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from Knowledge Workers. Notes 18, 4 (2005), 599--603.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. DeskTime. 2018. Automatic Business Time-Tracking Software | DeskTime. (2018). https://desktime.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nancy G. Dodd and Daniel C. Ganster. 1996. The Interactive Effects of Variety, Autonomy, and Feedback on Attitudes and Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, 4 (jul 1996), 329--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Peter F. Drucker. 1991. The new productivity challenge. Harvard business review 69, 6 (1991), 69--69. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/10114929Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Peter F Drucker. 1999. Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review 41, 2 (jan 1999), 79--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. Richard Hackman and Greg R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 2 (1976), 250--279. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Barry P. Haynes. 2007. An evaluation of office productivity measurement. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 9, 3 (jul 2007), 144--155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo Ray Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A Kientz. 2016. MyTime: Designing and Evaluating an Intervention for Smartphone Non-Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 4746--4757. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kevin Holesh. 2018. Moment -- Automatically track your and your family's daily iPhone and iPad use. (2018). https://inthemoment.io/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 (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1799--1808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Tero Jokela, Jarno Ojala, and Thomas Olsson. 2015. A Diary Study on Combining Multiple Information Devices in Everyday Activities and Tasks. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 3903--3912. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Inyeop Kim, Gyuwon Jung, Hayoung Jung, Minsam Ko, and Uichin Lee. 2017. Let&Rsquo;s FOCUS: Mitigating Mobile Phone Use in College Classrooms. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 63 (Sept. 2017), 29 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jaejeung Kim, Chiwoo Cho, and Uichin Lee. 2017. Technology Supported Behavior Restriction for Mitigating Self-Interruptions in Multidevice Environments. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 64 (Sept. 2017), 21 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Young-Ho Kim, Jae Ho Jeon, Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, KwonHyun Kim, and Jinwook Seo. 2016. TimeAware: Leveraging Framing Effects to Enhance Personal Productivity. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 272--283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Young-Ho Kim, Jae Ho Jeon, Bongshin Lee, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Jinwook Seo. 2017. OmniTrack: A Flexible Self-Tracking Approach Leveraging Semi-Automated Tracking. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 67 (Sept. 2017), 28 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Minsam Ko, Seungwoo Choi, Koji Yatani, and Uichin Lee. 2016. Lock n' LoL: Group-based Limiting Assistance App to Mitigate Smartphone Distractions in Group Activities. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 998--1010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Minsam Ko, Kyong-Mee Chung, Subin Yang, Joonwon Lee, Christian Heizmann, Jinyoung Jeong, Uichin Lee, Daehee Shin, Koji Yatani, and Junehwa Song. 2015. NUGU: A Group-based Intervention App for Improving Self-Regulation of Limiting Smartphone Use. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1235--1245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Sai Loo. 2017. Creative Working in the Knowledge Economy. Routledge, London, UK. 178 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. ManicTime. 2018. Time Tracker Management Tracking Software. (2018). https://www.manictime.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Gloria Mark, Mary Czerwinski, and Shamsi T Iqbal. 2018. Effects of Individual Differences in Blocking Workplace Distractions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Gloria Mark, Victor M. Gonzalez, and Justin Harris. 2005. No Task Left Behind?: Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 321--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Gloria Mark, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, and Paul Johns. 2014. Bored Mondays and Focused Afternoons. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '14). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 3025--3034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Gloria Mark, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, Paul Johns, Akane Sano, and Yuliya Lutchyn. 2016. Email Duration, Batching and Selfinterruption. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1717--1728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Andre N. Meyer, Gail C. Murphy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Thomas Fritz. 2017. Retrospecting on Work and Productivity: A Study on SelfMonitoring Software Developers' Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 79 (Dec. 2017), 24 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Viktoria Pammer, Stefan Edler, and Hermann Stern. 2012. Visualising the Fragmentation of Knowledge Work. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 779--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Robert D Pritchard. 1995. Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yuri W. Ramírez and David a. Nembhard. 2004. Measuring knowledge worker productivity. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5, 4 (dec 2004), 602--628. arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10--2012-0068Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Robert B Reich. 2002. The Future of Success: Working and Living in the New Economy. Vintage, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolfgang Reinhardt, Benedikt Schmidt, Peter Sloep, and Hendrik Drachsler. 2011. Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions-Results of Two Empirical Studies. Knowledge and Process Management 18, 3 (jul 2011), 150--174. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. RescueTime. 2018. RescueTime: Time management software for staying productive and happy in the modern workplace. (2018). https://www.rescuetime.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. John Rooksby, Parvin Asadzadeh, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2016. Personal Tracking of Screen Time on Digital Devices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 284--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Anjeli Singh and Sareeka Malhotra. 2013. A Researcher's Guide to Running Diary Studies. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction - APCHI '13. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 296--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mark Snyder. 1974. Self-monitoring of Expressive Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, 4 (1974), 526--537.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. April J. Spivack and Beth A. Rubin. 2011. Spaces to Control Creative Output of the Knowledge Worker: A Managerial Paradox?. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (iConference '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 312--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Toon W Taris and Paul J G Schreurs. 2009. Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happyproductive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress 23, 2 (2009), 120--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. TimeDoctor. 2018. Smart Employee Time Tracking Software with Screenshots | Time Doctor. (2018). https://www.timedoctor.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Veriato. 2018. Veriato | Insider Threat Detection, Employee Monitoring Software. (2018). https://www.veriato.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Wakatime. 2018. WakaTime -- Open source plugins, goals, and automatic time tracking for programmers. (2018). https://wakatime.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Steve Whittaker, Vaiva Kalnikaite, Victoria Hollis, and Andrew Guydish. 2016. 'Don't Waste My Time': Use of Time Information Improves Focus. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1729--1738. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Thomas A. Wright, Russell Cropanzano, and Douglas G. Bonett. 2007. The Moderating Role of Employee Positive Well Being on the Relation Between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12, 2 (2007), 93--104. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Dezhi Wu and Marilyn Tremaine. 2004. Knowledge Worker Adoption of Time Management Tools: Satisfaction and Perceived Effectiveness. In AMCIS 2004 Proceedings. AISeL, New York, NY, USA, 433. https: //aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004/433Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Despoina Xanthopoulou, Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2009. Work Engagement and Financial Returns: A Diary Study on the Role of Job and Personal Resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82, 1 (mar 2009), 183--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Understanding Personal Productivity: How Knowledge Workers Define, Evaluate, and Reflect on Their Productivity

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2019
      9077 pages
      ISBN:9781450359702
      DOI:10.1145/3290605

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format