Science behind Stress-Free Productivity范文[英语论文]

资料分类免费英语论文 责任编辑:王教授更新时间:2017-04-25
提示:本资料为网络收集免费论文,存在不完整性。建议下载本站其它完整的收费论文。使用可通过查重系统的论文,才是您毕业的保障。

范文:“Science behind Stress-Free Productivity ” 艾伦提出了为提高工作效率,减少信息超载造成的压力。在这篇管理范文中,我们首先总结,然后审查理论,解释在现实世界中大脑如何处理信息和计划。结论是,大脑严重依赖于环境,作为一个外部存储器,触发行动并确定相应的来源。我们展示这些准则,关注组织任务的可操作性。最后,提出了一个扩展的GTD支持协同工作。我们现在社会的特点是快速增长,变化十分复杂,但目标是一个常量。

管理需要收集和处理潜在的相关信息。正因为如此,我们的大多数日活动属于知识性工作。但是我们怎样才能有效地组织这些工作,虽然有大量文献建立了如何组织传统的活动。下面的范文将进行详述。

Abstract
Allen (2017) proposed the “Getting Things Done” (GTD) method for personal productivity enhancement, and reduction of the stress caused by information overload. This argues that recent insights in psychology and cognitive science support and extend GTD’s recommendations. We first summarize GTD with the help of a flowchart. We then review the theories of situated, embodied and distributed cognition that purport to explain how the brain processes information and plans actions in the real world. The conclusion is that the brain heavily relies on the environment, to function as an external memory, a trigger for actions, and a source of affordances, disturbances and feedback. We then show how these principles are practically implemented in GTD, with its focus on organizing tasks into “actionable” external memories, and on opportunistic, situation-dependent execution. Finally, we propose an extension of GTD to support collaborative work, inspired by the concept of stigmergy. 
Keywords: personal productivity, personal information management, time management, task management, praxeology, situated and embodied cognition, stigmergy, information overload.

Introduction 
Our present society is characterized by quickly growing complexity and change: opportunities, constraints, and objectives are in a constant flux. Managing the situation requires gathering and processing an incessant stream of potentially relevant information. As such, most of our day-today activities fall under the heading of knowledge work (Drucker, 1973). But how can we efficiently organize such heavily information-dependent work? While there is a large and established literature on how to organize traditional physical activities, such as industrial processes, the literature on knowledge management is as yet much less well developed, and mostly concerns the static storage and reuse of existing knowledge rather than the processing of incoming information. 

The extensive literature on information processing, on the other hand, mostly concerns computer systems rather than human information processing. Some aspects of human information processing, such as decision-making, project planning and problem solving, have been well investigated. However, the corresponding theories are not really helpful to cope with the information explosion, since they generally assume a given range of possibilities from which the best possible one is to be chosen. However, in a situation where new information may arrive by the minute, both the relevant options and the criteria for deciding between them are constantly changing. 

This makes formal optimization methods basically useless in day-to-day knowledge work. As Simon (1997) pointed out long ago, rationality is bounded: we never have the full information needed to make optimal choices. But Simon’s alternative strategy of “satisficing” is flawed too: a choice that is satisfactory now, may not appear so good anymore when new information comes in. In practice, people follow a strategy of “bettering”: choosing what seems best from the available options now, but being ready to switch to something better when new information arrives. This opportunistic mode of decision-making is pervasive in today’s fast-paced and uncertain world. However, its lack of a clear focus makes it likely that people would not really know what to aim for, what to do, and what not to do. Moreover, the constant bombardment with new information means that previous plans, decisions and relevant data are often forgotten or neglected. The last two decades have seen an explosion of methods for “time management”, “task management”, or “personal productivity enhancement” that try to teach knowledge workers efficient routines for dealing with this overload of ever changing demands (e.g. Covey, Merrill & Merrill, 1994). Most of the recommendations concern concrete tools and techniques, such as installing spam filters, using personal organizers, sharing calendars, etc. Insofar that they look at the wider picture, however, they tend to remain within the optimization paradigm: they suggest first to formulate clear objectives or priorities (optimization criteria), and then to order the different tasks according to (a) how much they contribute to the priorities, (b) how much time, effort or other resources you need to invest in them.

The recommendation is then to focus on the tasks that contribute maximally to the chosen objectives while requiring minimal resources. Although this strategy may seem self-evident, it does not take into account the fact that for knowledge work both priorities and resources are in general ill defined and constantly changing. The reason is that information, unlike material resources, is not a conserved quantity: it can appear (be discovered or communicated) or disappear (become outdated) at any moment. For example, an engineer planning the construction of a bridge can be pretty confident that the amount of concrete and steel necessary for the construction will not suddenly change. 

On the other hand, an author planning to write a book about how to use this great new communication software may suddenly find out that the software has a fatal security flaw, or that another writer has just finished a comprehensive treatment of the same subject. If that author had planned her complete work schedule around the book project, she would have to start her planning from scratch. More generally, applying an optimization strategy to knowledge work may produce rather than reduce stress, as people worry about what priorities to accord to different alternatives, and then feel guilty or disoriented when they have not managed to follow their own prescriptions because of unforeseen changes.

The GTD method: summary 
GTD is a simple and flexible method for managing your day-to-day tasks or activities, so as to maximize personal productivity. The intended result of applying GTD is being able to keep up with a high workflow in a relaxed manner. The main principle is to get everything that is nagging you out of your mind and into a trusted external memory (file system), so that you can stay focused on what you actually have to do now, rather than on various ideas, plans and commitments for later. To achieve this, GTD provides a compilation of tips and tools, organized around a central flowchart, as depicted in Fig. 1. Organized people will certainly already use calendars, to-do lists, note-taking devices, and other tools. What GTD adds, however, is a method for using those tools systematically together.

Conclusion 
The bombardment with information that knowledge workers presently undergo produces a lot of stress and confusion (Shenk, 1997). Traditional methods for task and time management only provide superficial relief, because they fail to address the central problem: new information typically requires reconsideration of priorities, objectives and resources. When priorities are inconsistent, methods based on optimization or detailed planning become ineffective. In his bestselling book of the same name (Allen, 2017), David Allen has proposed an alternative method: “Getting Things Done”, or GTD. In GTD, the focus has changed from establishing priorities to meticulously keeping track of opportunities and commitments for action. 

When (or even whether) these opportunities are followed up depends more on the affordances of the present situation than on any shifting plans for later. Referring to plenty of personal experience, its practitioners claim that this method minimizes stress, while ensuring that work proceeds smoothly towards maximal productivity. While there are as yet no empirical studies confirming these claims, we have argued that they can be justified on theoretical grounds. For this, we have reviewed a variety of concepts and insights emerging from the new science of situated and embodied cognition, which has largely overtaken the older symbolic paradigm within cognitive science. Proponents of situated cognition assert that the basic functioning mode of the human mind is not reasoning and planning, but interacting via perception and action with the environmental situation. 

The kind of abstract, internal reasoning envisaged in the symbolic view of cognition is intrinsically hard on the brain, because of its strict “magical number” limitation on working memory and the unreliability of recall from long-term memory. The more natural approach to problem solving is simply trying out actions in the environment and using sensory-motor feedback to correct the situation when errors or disturbances make it deviate from the goal. Further actions are typically triggered by such feedback together with the affordances and disturbances of the environment, i.e. by new information coming in through the senses—not by pre-existing plans. Moreover, the burden on memory can be very much reduced by “offloading” information into a stable external memory, where it is safely stored and ready to trigger action later on. Although Allen (2017, p. 72) merely hints at the perspective of distributed cognition, GTD appears to implement these same principles. 

It does this by insisting that all task-related information be stored in a system of external memories, and this so as to be maximally actionable, i.e. ready to stimulate action. To achieve this, GTD proposes a detailed flowchart (Fig. 1) that formalizes the process of collecting and organizing incoming information into a set of action categories. This is followed by reviewing and performing the registered to-dos. The emphasis is on first doing the actions that best match the affordances and constraints of the present situation, rather than the actions with the highest priority. Implicitly, GTD assumes that all tasks in the external memory are worth performing; if in practice not all of them can be done, then it is better to do as many as presently possible. To achieve this you should start with the ones that require the least time and effort given the constraints and affordances of the situation. Priorities are subjective and likely to change. Affordances are objectively given, but remain available only as long as the situation lasts. Therefore, maximizing productivity means optimally exploiting the present affordances. This means being ready with a comprehensive list of worthwhile actions to perform whenever the occasion presents itself. 

GTD’s claim of making work stress-free can be justified on two grounds. First, GTD minimizes the burden on memory and reasoning by systematically exploiting external memories. As argued by Allen, this will reduce the anxiety caused by not being sure that you remember everything you need to remember. Second, and more fundamentally, the consistent application of GTD should promote all the features that characterize the flow state: a clear sense of purpose; regular feedback as to-dos are “ticked off” one by one; on-going, unrestrained advance towards the goals; and challenges (tasks) adapted to skills (affordances and personal abilities). As extensively documented by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), activities with these features are characterized by a sense of control, focus, and well-being—in sharp contrast to the confusion, anxiety and procrastination that accompany the all-too-common situation of information overload (Shenk, 1997). Of course, we are never fully master of our own destiny, and from time to time challenges will be imposed upon us for which we lack the necessary skills. Therefore, GTD cannot guarantee the absence of work-related stress, but it clearly seems like an important step in the right direction.()

网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有;未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象,英语论文网站,保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()

英语毕业论文
免费论文题目: