I have to weigh in my support for the “Godel, Escher, Bach” book. For me, this is a book that I pick up from time to time, randomly turn to a page, and find immense food for thought that often finds its way into a project I’m working on for a Client or into a painting. ‘Immensely good stuff.

I’d like to comment also about the “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” book. This one is odd for me. On one hand, I found the book to be trite; “ok, I get the point about Quality already.” On the other hand, I find myself thinking about it quite often even though it’s been over a decade since I’ve read it.

Another one to add:

“Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” by Norbert Wiener.

And one for you in particular, Vaughan:

“The Mystery of 2012: Predictions, Prophecies & Possibilities”– Read it and you might think you have to work faster to effect all the changes you’d planned for 2017!

Bob

I think you’re correct to question the term “cognitive overload” as being a misnomer. People have the ability to process single streams of information at an incredibly high rate, so it’s unlikely that current network bandwidth or application data transfer from a single source would overwhelm someone.

At MIT, Brynjolffson and Aral have quantified a distinct inverted U curve that illustrates the impact of Web 2.0 technology on productivity. Not surprisingly, the introduction of new ICT tools helps workers multitask more effectively, leading to an initial increase in total productivity, but only up to a point. Increasing multitasking further results in increased errors, reduced efficiency and a negative impact on productivity.

Back in the 90s the cause of this productivity drain was more correctly identified as “cognitive switching cost” and is related to any environment where constant interruption and rapid change of task occurs.

A few weeks ago in my blog I highlighted some recent research at Oxford that shows that, contrary to popular belief, older workers might be better prepared to function in such an environment than their younger counterparts.

http://ciscoetl.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/hardhats-for-tomorrows-knowledge-workers/

The researchers said that younger workers (18-21) who are subjected to constant interruption exhibit symptoms similar to suffering a ”kick in the head” and that older workers (35-39) fare much better under similar circumstances.

In any case, I firmly believe that technology must be properly combined with process and culture changes in order to result in successful adoption. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.

This is of great interest to me because of my own strong interest in the power of Web 2.0 technologies to amplify collaboration and business processes in general. As you know, I’m working on the creation of a social layer on top of ITIL service management right now, and almost daily I’m seeing other applications of this too.

I’d like to bring to your attention an article that just came across my screen today:

http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Web-20/Web-20-Too-Good/?kc=CIOMINEPNL050108

This author is raising the notion that Web 2.0 technologies can be in fact, counter productive.

The piece first mentions the idea of “cognitive overload,” which I’m having a hard time coming to terms with (maybe I’m cognitively overloaded, who knows). At the moment, this seems somewhat trite to me.

Secondly mentioned is the potential that creation of a product using this sort of collaboration could create a product that doesn’t look or work like anything else they’ve created. Hmmm, this could be good rather than bad, right?

Anyway, while the source quoted in the article does admit he’s not sold on “the wisdom of crowds,” I think it’s good food for thought that is raised by these somewhat contrarian points.

Thanks.