Advertising
Advertising

Why Email isn’t Broken, We Just Need Something New

Why Email isn’t Broken, We Just Need Something New

There has been a big buzz on the web lately about the email system being broken. I think this is because people don’t use email for what it was intended–message transmission from one person to another. Today, many people also use emails for:

  • Personal to-do lists
  • Events management
  • Task management
  • File tracking
  • Marketing

I’m sure we could find dozens of other uses that people have for email, but the truth of the matter is that emails don’t provide an efficient solution to any of these points. Emails were intended to send messages. They do that extremely well. Have you ever lost an email? Have you ever had an email that has never arrived to its user? No. The only reason why you would have those issues is because you misspelled the email, forgot to CC it to the right people or it landed in the spam box. The system is amazingly reliable across all your devices and applications. You’ve been using it for YEARS–why change?

Advertising

So, what’s the problem?

144 billion emails were sent last year–per day. The problem, as mentioned above, is that people don’t use emails for just emails. The multiple uses of email have instead created situations such as employees spending 28% of their time on email instead of productive work. In addition to that, it’s usually a great source of distractions, with your aunt sending you pictures of her cat or a friend sending you a YouTube link to an epic fail video, or maybe you check it every fifteen minutes under the guise that it’s good etiquette to reply THAT promptly.

Advertising

bad-andy

    What can you do about it?

    Well you could:

    • Get more organized using labels and filters (but not many email providers give you that option–and mostly it’s the super-organized among us that actually take the time to do that).
    • Create different email addresses for different people, despite the fact that keeping up with them can get annoying (I know–I have more than a dozen email addresses).
    • Sign up on a bunch of different websites/services that promise to do what you normally use your email service for (Which one? And does it really change anything?).

    The core thing about email is that it’s still irreplaceable. 2.3 billion + people in the world have an email address. It’s well documented, creating it is extremely simple, and it’s free.  What else could you ask for?

    Advertising

    The bottom line is that complexity causes stress, dissatisfaction and loss of productivity. But because email is so ingrained in our day-to-day existence we can’t imagine working without it. New collaboration tools have to make people feel like they can let go of traditional (yes–traditional!) Internet behavior and maximize the benefits of tools built for to-do lists, tasks, marketing, event managing and so on.

    Why use a spoon to dig a hole when you can use a shovel?

    Advertising

    More by this author

    13 Ways To Make Money While Traveling More Than 20 Jobs for Stay-at-Home Moms Big Brother On Video Calls: Tools To Easily Secure Your Online Calls And Chats hacking-hackathon-hacker Hacking: Any Different From “Creative Solution”? 10 Simple Ways to Double Your Productivity

    Trending in Productivity

    1The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It? 210 Best Time Management Books Recommended By Entrepreneurs 3What Is Procrastination (And the Complete Guide to Stop Procrastinating) 46 Simple Steps to Make Progress Towards Achieving Goals 5Secrets to Organizing Thoughts and Ideas (So You’ll Never Lose Ideas!)

    Read Next

    Advertising
    Advertising

    The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

    The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

    It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

    Put another way by Robert Solow, a 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, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

    New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

    There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

    Advertising

    So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

    What is the productivity paradox?

    There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

    In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

    He wrote in his conclusion:

    “Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

    Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

    How do we measure productivity anyway?

    And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

    In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

    But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

    In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

    But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

    Possible causes of the productivity paradox

    Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

    Advertising

    • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
    • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
    • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
    • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

    There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

    According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

    Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

    The paradox and the recession

    The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

    “Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

    This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

    Advertising

    According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

    Looking forward

    A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

    “Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

    Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

    “Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

    On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

    Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

    Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

    Reference

    Read Next