This depressing saying we've all heard time and again: "an increase in technology doesn't necessarily translate to increased productivity." in other words, Robert Solow, Nobel Laureate in economics, "you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."
In other words just because our computers are getting faster, it doesn't mean that we are going to equivalent jump in performance. In fact the opposite may be true! New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008, stated that "aggregate and individual evidence mounts that the same tools technology that led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.
There is a strange paradox when it comes to performance. Instead of an exponential curve performance eventually reaches a plateau, even with advances in technology. So what does this mean for our personal productivity levels? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here's what you should know about productivity paradox, its causes and possible solutions may have to fight it.
What is irony?
There is a mismatch between investments in growth and at the national level, productivity and productive output. The term "paradox" was popularized after the performance used in the title 1993 MIT Professor Erik Brynjolfsson, from MIT Sloan School of management and Director of the Center for digital business at MIT.
In his paper, Brynjolfsson stated that, despite the fact that there does not seem to be direct, measurable correlation between the increase and improvement in the output, this can be a reflection of how productive production is measured and monitored.
The intangible assets, such as to respond better to customers and improved coordination with suppliers not always increase the amount or even internal quality but helps to make sure it arrived at the right time in the right place, with the right attributes for each client.
Just as leaders look beyond performance for some of the benefits from it, so should be ready to take the researchers beyond conventional performance measurement methods, "he wrote in the conclusion.
How do we measure the performance of, anyway?
And this brings up a good point. Exactly how this is measured by performance?
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics performance is measured as the change in share of gross domestic product per hour of work.
However, other publications, such as the us today, argue that it's not the best way to monitor performance and instead use what is called the total productivity factor (TFP). According to us today, "considers the income of an employee of the TFG, after deduction of productivity, which resulted in an increase in capital stock, with the expectation that investment in modern manufacturing plants, equipment and technology automatically improves performance.
In other words, this method changes the performance weight, how much improvement since last time performance statistics were collected.
But if we can't even agree on the best way to track performance, how do we know for certain if we introduced the performance paradox?
Possible causes the performance paradox
Brynjolfsson stated that there are four possible causes for the paradox.
? Mismeasurement: successes are real, but our present measures allow them;
? Redistribution: does private benefits, but they come at the expense of other companies and individuals, leaving little net gain;
? delay: successes take long to show up; and
? Management: there are no benefits due to unusual difficulties in the management or the information itself.
Seems to be some evidence to support theories mismeasurement as shown above. Another promising candidate is time supported Paul David, an economist at Oxford University. According to the article in the Economist's study showed that productivity did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric energy in early 1880. This was partly because it takes up to 1920, at least half of the American industrial equipment to be powered by electricity ".
Thus, he argues, we are not going to see major leaps in performance to both United States and major global powers reached a rate of at least 50% penetration for computer usage. United States only hit Mark, ten years ago and in many other countries are far behind the level of growth.
Paradox and recession
Productivity paradox still affects the recessionary economy. According to Neil Irwin "sky-high productivity mean that almost no business production decreased, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers … businesses was published by produce only 3% less goods and services than they were at the end of 2007 godano Americans work almost 10 percent fewer hours of mix of layoffs and cuts in the week."
This means that more and more companies are trying to do less is more and that means squeezing two or three people in the value of the work of one person in some cases. According to Irwin, workers, job security, scaring squeezed more performance from every hour [2010]. "
Looking forward
In a recent article on Slate puts it in perspective with a brief comment: "the Internet is not just as revolutionary as we think it is. Of course, people may get an infinite pleasure it is indisputably the trend towards improving people's quality of life. And of course, it could revolutionize how we find, buy and sell goods and services. "But that's not meant as a transformation of the economy, such as the railways were".
Nevertheless, Brynjolfsson argues that performance really can distort the mismeasurement results people, examining the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.
"Because you and I stopped buying CDs, in the music industry has declined, according to income and GDP. But we are not listening to less music. "There is more music consumed sooner," he explains.On paper, the GDP is calculated, disappears in the music industry, but in reality it does not disappear. He disappears as income. He persists in terms of what you should care about, which is music. "
Perhaps the paradox is not a death sentence for our performance after all. Only time will tell (and possibly improving the methods of measurement).
Tucker is a writer and social media professional living in New England. When not staring into a tiny electric field, it is engaged in wanton acts of stupidity at BadBoozeReview.com and at MargeryJones.com posts daily
没有评论:
发表评论