How to catch a "stream", and how to make sure that it does not break

    Introduction


    As a project manager, I notice more and more that the effectiveness of the team (and each programmer in particular) is a key factor in determining the success of a project. With effective work, even the most difficult projects with tight deadlines can be completed successfully, and an ineffective one can “overwhelm” the simplest projects with a minimum of risks. Therefore, I would like to share my thoughts on one of the key concepts - the concept of “work flow”.



    The first time I saw this term in the pages of the magnificent book by Tom Demarco and Timothy Lister “The Human Factor. Successful Projects and Teams, also known as Peopleware.
    So, first the theory.

    Theory


    Probably, many are familiar with the feeling that the time around has stopped, and you are completely committed to work and are ready to turn the mountains to achieve the result. At the same time, time flies completely imperceptibly ("Well, is it time for lunch? I just came!"), And you experience a feeling of utmost concentration and slight euphoria.

    Psychologists call this state of consciousness during work “work flow”, and the state itself - “flow”.
    Obviously, any task is performed many times faster and more accurately if the person is in the "stream". Moreover, there are several types of work that is simply not possible without entering the stream. For example, a description of the technical specification of the project or writing an article (yes, I am also in the stream now). Yes, and the usual creation of program code is impossible without complete immersion and "work flow".

    So what's the problem? We come to work, enter the “stream”, take a lunch break, again return to the “stream”, joyfully go home with the awareness of the mountains that have been rolled up and the day that we lived for good reason. But there is a problem. And, in my opinion, it is the most serious productivity problem for both performers and their leaders.

    The fact is that entering the stream requires a considerable amount of time. Each one has its own and depends on many factors (fatigue, personal problems, interest in work, etc.) On average, a person needs about 15 minutes to enter a stream. But the most unpleasant thing is that the state of the flow is very easy to break.

    Suppose Asya is a programmer. At the moment, it implements complex functionality for collecting statistics from the server or, say, implements a complex search interface for the iPhone. Now imagine that Vasya - her PM urgently needs to refine the assessment of the task that the customer sent him. Obviously, Vasya goes to Asa and says: “Listen, I need to find out how much it will take to implement the display of the login form before buying goods.” Obviously, in order to answer this question, Asa has to stop and focus on how the login occurs, to realize the approximate architecture and understand what, in general, they want from her. The stream is interrupted, almost instantly. Vasya receives an answer, and leaves satisfied. And Asya spends another 15 minutes to return to full and productive work.

    If the distraction (I would call it “pull out of the stream”) occurs once or twice a day, you can put up with it, although even this is half an hour of lost work. But imagine that Vasya needs some information every half hour. And he, not embarrassed (after all, this information is extremely important for the project!), Constantly asks something from the unfortunate Asya, who has just focused on her no less unfortunate collection of statistics. It turns out that Asya spends exactly 4 hours a day on unproductive “concentration” and entry into the stream, and out of the remaining four hours she answers at least an hour to stupid questions that have nothing to do with her current task.

    As a result, everyone is unhappy. Vasya is indignant: the function of collecting statistics, which Asya herself estimated in three days of work, was done in a week and a half, and even works as it should: she loses data and, at times, crashes with errors. It is obvious that the unfortunate Asya will be guilty of this situation again: she did not fit into her own assessment, she made many mistakes, etc.

    Yes, how honest PM Vasya understands that he distracted Asya. But after all, in total it took no more than half a day, and Asya's lag was already a whole week. The conclusion is obvious: Asya does not work well.

    Now let's look at Asya: she was not allowed to work calmly, continuously distracted by issues that had nothing to do with the matter, and then they were also deprived of the bonus for delaying the release of an important product promised to George Washington himself.

    Let’s add to this: telephone, excessively chatty colleagues (especially in open space offices), general meetings, etc. It turns out that in order to be in a state of flow (read, work efficiently), a person needs to spend a lot of effort and sometimes take very antisocial actions (up to the polite request “to shut up everyone”).

    By the way, a characteristic sign that you have problems with the flow is increased work efficiency during non-working hours - before and after the working day. The phrases “after seven in the evening I do as much as an hour as I do in a day, apparently I’m an owl” and “from eight to nine, while my brain is free I manage to do a lot” they’re not talking about what kind of “bird” you are and not about that you get tired in a day (although this, of course, is also likely). Most likely, they say that you cannot enter the “state of flow” due to the fact that you are constantly distracted.

    Practice


    What to do? Demarco and Lister, for example, offer to display “do not disturb” signs. It can be tablets, red scarves - all that will make it clear to others that you are "in the stream" and really do not want to leave it. Headphones also help from “chatty” colleagues - this is already my personal observation. Practice shows that they greatly increase the chances of avoiding engaging in unnecessary conversations.

    Obviously, one of the most important tasks of a competent leader is not to get people out of the flow state. The leader needs to soberly assess that each distraction of an employee will cost his project at least fifteen minutes and, accordingly, plan actions.

    But the trouble - a significant part of the manager’s work consists precisely in clarifying the details, getting estimates of labor costs, discussing the nuances, etc. In general, to do exactly what distracts employees. And the worst thing is that, often, Vasya is completely sure: Asya must answer his question right now, otherwise the project will fail.

    The following strategy seems to be the most effective for the manager: to accumulate the tasks of the employee and track when he leaves the flow state. This can be a switch to another task after completing the previous one, a lunch break or something else. It is at this time that it will be most effective to resolve issues that require the participation of an employee. I use the formula - "you’ll come as you free yourself a bit / add it to the point." Being in a stream, a person rarely thinks of anything other than his current task. Therefore, if an employee considers himself “a little freed,” then he temporarily left the stream, and he can be easily tormented by evaluations and discussion of aspects of the implementation of future functionality.

    There was a case when one of my employees, let's call him Semyon, constantly did not keep up with tasks that were urgent enough. I did not make a conclusion for myself about the unprofessionalism of this programmer (I try to never draw such conclusions, even if they are obvious, and having done so, say goodbye to a person right away). Under some pretext, I went to his office and spent some time there. Frankly, I distracted another employee and talked with him for a long time, but it was a conscious and compelled victim. It turned out that in the twenty minutes that I spent in their office, they turned to him three times for help in setting up the server (Semyon is an excellent Linux specialist) and was asked twice about implementing something in PHP. It is obvious that each time Semyon gave comprehensive answers to grateful colleagues and returned to his work as soon as they left. Yes, each answer took about two minutes. But Semyon did not enter the state of flow.

    After that, I personally printed a tablet “Do not distract seeds!” With a signature and a picture of a threatening fist, hanging it in front of Semen’s computer so that others can see it (but he doesn’t, so as not to be distracted). Needless to say, the task over which he unsuccessfully fought for two days was completed in the next three hours.
    By the way, all of the above is true for leaders. I am constantly in a condition in which every 10 minutes someone asks me something. Therefore, in order to work efficiently, you sometimes have to “disconnect from the world” - headphones, “do not disturb” status, disabled mail client and ICQ. At one time, I had a sign on my desk: “I am not here. You don’t have to talk with the clone - he still doesn’t know how. Oddly enough - it helps not to get out of the stream for a very long time.

    Of course, there are also “whip” methods - not to approve moving around the office during working hours, to prohibit conversations at the workplace on abstract topics, etc. But it seems ridiculous to me. A programmer (namely, I work with them) ¬– is a creative profession and for effective work he needs freedom (of course, “effective freedom”, not anarchy and disorder). Therefore, I prefer to increase the efficiency of programmers without limiting their freedom. Just make sure that most of the time they are in the stream. Yes, it's complicated, but it's worth it!

    PS In this article, I did not mention anything about statistics: the measurement of "thread-hours" and "factor C" are the ratio of the number of thread-hours to the time spent, which, in fact, helps to understand how much you actually work. However, this is very well described in Peopleware. If you suddenly did not read this book, you simply must read it.

    Also popular now: