Bring your thoughts, issues, and challenges on Information Overload to the Information Overload Research Group’s quarterly online event.  The event is open to everyone interested in the topic of Information Overload (at no charge, of course).

This will be a roundtable discussion around the topic “How Does Information Overload Impact You?” moderated by Jonathan Spira, IORG’s vice president of research and chief analyst at Basex.  He will be joined by Prof. Jonathan Ezor, director of the Institute for Business, Law and Technology at Touro.

The format of the meeting gives attendees an opportunity to talk about the personal impact of Information Overload.  Please bring your comments, thoughts, and potential solutions with you.

Everyone is welcome to speak.

Discussion Guidelines:

• 2-3 minute presentation
• State the problem(s)
• Indicate whether they are individual, group-, or organization-wide
• If possible, discuss how they are being addressed.

To register to the event click here.

On Tuesday, I was invited to be part of the expert panel discussion that launched the three-day summit on Information Overload run by v3.co.uk (previously known us vnnunet).

Given the nature of the audience, the summit as a whole has a technical emphasis and is sponsored by IBM. Having said that, there was a willingness on the panel I took part in to discuss the behavioural issues as well. If you have an hour to spare, you can watch the discussion here.

There is a wealth of other video debates and articles on v3’s site which is particularly rich in technical aspects of information overload such as storage and data centres. A comment article by Ian Williams, however, is a good expression of the view – which I share – that this is more about management than anything else.

The issue of information overload is getting increasing media coverage in the UK although it is still some way behind the US.

Next week, V3.co.uk (formerly vnu.net), part of Incisive Media, is taking the lead by hosting a three-day summit. It is opening the event with a live web TV panel discussion on Tuesday November 10^th at 11am. I will be on the panel along with representatives from other companies including IBM, The National Computing Centre and Freeform Dynamics.

If you would like to find out more about the event or register, please follow the link below:

http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/event/INCITWEEKCOMPUTING/29539ed932-3161-intro

When I tell friends and colleagues that I’m on the board of the Information Overload Research Group – “You know, that organization that got started on the Microsoft campus a couple of years ago” – they often say something like, “That sounds interesting.  So what does IORG do?”

For an organization ramped up by a handful of volunteers, we’ve accomplished a fair amount.  We . . .

·      Incorporated, wrote bylaws and elected a board.

·      Started a web site, a blog and an e-newsletter.

·      Organized a successful conference in New York and are programming a second one in Palo Alto in September.

·      Held two all-member teleseminars.

·      Designed a corporate sponsorship program.

·      Added vice presidents for marketing and membership.

·      Started assembling what we hope will be the world’s most comprehensive repository of research relating to information overload.

But the underlying question is, “What will we be when we grow up?”  Our mission statement provides the roadmap:

We work together to understand, publicize and solve the information overload problem. We do this by (1) defining and building awareness of information overload, (2) facilitating and funding collaboration and advanced research aimed at shaping solutions and establishing best practices, and (3) serving as a resource center where we share information and resources, offer guidance and connections, and help make the business case for fighting information overload.

The trick, of course, is how we do each of those.  Here’s what I hope to see:

·      We’ll enlarge our tent when it comes to thinking about information overload. We’ve been focused primarily on IO as it affects business productivity and quality of life for knowledge workers.  But the effects in other segments of life also are profound.  I’d like to see us really dig into information overload as it relates to politics, government and public policy (in democracies and non-democracies); journalism, news consumption and media brands; marketing, advertising and retailing; academia (and, potentially, K-12 education); medicine and law; the military services; and other endeavors where IO is a significant factor.  Also worth examining:  How cultural forces and search-engine optimization both contribute to the quantities of “content” constantly being created.

·      We’ll get more creative about generating resources for research projects. Facilitating and funding research is central to why we exist.  Funding requires income – and more members would help in this regard.  But truly promoting the right kind of research will require serving as a catalyst for connecting researchers with funding sources.  IORG could also collect contributions and/or funnel corporate dollars to specific research projects.  We need to work on a more concrete plan.

·      We’ll become even more effective at getting what’s already being learned into the hands of individuals, companies and organizations that can use it to forge useful solutions. Excellent work is being done in this field (and areas that are closely related).  I don’t want to hear, “Well, if you guys know so much about this, why does the problem continue to get worse?”  We need to help corporations, universities and other major players understand that a) information overload is a demonstrable drain on their effectiveness, b) research and tools exist to improve the situation, and c) measurable ROI comes from paying attention to a and b.  Perhaps we should think in terms of getting better at “sales” – selling the idea that IO isn’t a law of physics (such as gravity), but something that can and should be managed.

Bottom line:  If we choose the right initiatives and pursue them passionately, we have the potential to make information overload a temporary problem.

If you have ideas on how IORG can become more effective – and better serve the world – we’d love to hear them.

Bill Boyd, ABC, is a director of the Information Overload Research Group and director of strategic communications consulting at Group Health Cooperative in Seattle.

Wave represents a serious paradigm shift in the way people collaborate remotely. It merges the roles of email, IM, shared document editing, wikis, and more into a single dynamic hosted entity called a Wave, which is “equal parts conversation and document“.

It has to be seen to be understood. Go see it. Then start speculating, as I do, how this will impact communications in large enterprises, which are not agile in embracing new tools, yet have so much to gain from the availability of such an innovative tool…

Best of all, the folks at Basex shared it – “Information Overload – The Movie” is available to us all on YouTube and on the Basex blog.

Via the Basex blog.

My first reaction was of astonishment, since we at IORG all know the body of research that proves multitasking – the futile attempt to “do five things at once” – can reduce effectiveness, creativity, and so forth. On closer reading, however, it became clear that Sawyer has quite a different definition of “Multitasking” in mind. He refers to the ability of people to seek information from multiple sources, as when students stop listening to their teacher to browse the web, or SMS, or tweet, in class. You can read the article and form your opinion; in my case this started me thinking: how come the same word refers to “our” kind of multitasking – trying to respond to endless interruptions – and to Sawyer’s exuberant exploration of knowledge resources?

Leaving aside the fact that nobody really does multiple things at once, so it’s more a matter of time-slicing, I concluded that there is indeed good multitasking and bad multitasking: it’s good if the person chooses what and when to multitask on, and it’s destructive if the choice is forced by incoming, unsolicited interrupters. In Sawyer’s classroom example students go where they wish in knowledge space; in the typical workplace environment knowledge workers are endlessly forced to drop one thing to respond to another.

Now, this is an idea with some merit; there are millions of meetings going on that are totally ineffective because everyone is “doing email” or web surfing instead of listening. It is interesting to  note, therefore, how the article in the Daily Tech where I saw it reported actually ridicules it as a case of “IBM Files Patent Application to Ignore Its Software”, which is like saying that installing a brake in its cars is a case of Ford “installing a device to ignore its own motors”. Whoever wrote this was ignoring the very real benefit such a system would have on meeting effectiveness. Strange…

It is fascinating to read the comments to the post. As my own experience confirms, suggestions like this tend to stir heated emotions. And indeed, on one hand, it is easy to identify with the views that it would be better to educate people to act sensibly; on the other, with thousands of users, we know that will never suffice. My own take on this is that the more aggravating RTAs – the ones that are a clear result of thoughtlessness – may be solved even if you don’t remove the button, but simply  move it on the toolbar away from REPLY. Even such a tiny change might eliminate some of the reflexive use of RTA when REPLY would suffice.

What do you think?

Whether sitting at a desk in the office, in a conference room, in one’s home office, or at a client, the likelihood of being able to complete a task (what many call “work”) without interruption is nil.  Content creation has gone off the charts and new forms of content are being pushed towards us at an ever increasing pace.  It’s not just e-mail, junk mail, text messages, phone calls, and monthly reports anymore.

Information Overload causes markedly lower productivity, diminished comprehension levels, compromised concentration levels, and less innovation.  According to a recent Basex survey, it also causes health problems: 35% of knowledge workers experience work-related back and/or neck pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, eye strain, headaches, or stress related symptoms.

One reason the problem continues unchecked is that few people seem to recognize its cost to their organization.  Last month, to help companies understand the extent of their financial exposure, we released a free, Web-based Information Overload Calculator.  The calculator allows you to calculate the impact of the problem on your own organization.

So far,  thousands of people, in industries ranging from advertising to zoology, have calculated their exposure.  If you haven’t yet calculated your exposure, please fasten your seatbelt and do it now.  You’ll be glad you did.

Jonathan B. Spira is vice president of research at the Information Overload Research Group (IORG) and chief analyst at Basex.