Topic: Dual Monitors

[Maverick®]

I have hard proof here on my desk from an accredited survey/research firm.

But then you posted this.  So I don't believe you.

[CADaver]

It's very easy to look at any information given and discredit it. 

I have never discredited data, just assumption with no data.

  Your comments argue that dual monitors do not increase productivity and are not worth the money.

hmmm... where do I post that?  I have never claimed that they don't or aren't.  You seem to equate questioning conclusions with claims of opposition, sorry, but that is inaccurate.

But yet you take the easy route and challenge others to come up with the data that is impossible to get given your standards. 

Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity, I asked for those surveys.  What I got were unsupported statements that it was so.  Tell me, do you believe every statement you read on the internet?  Or do you require a little more data than, "it's obvious"?

  If you don't claim anything you can't be called out on it.   Convenient for you.

Why would I need to claim something to ask for something?  If you ask for a cheesecake recipe do you HAVE to make some opposing claim so you can "be called out on it"? What the heck kind of logic is that?  Wait a minute strike that question, I'd have to come up with an opposing view so I could be called out on it.

Or you could provide "your" surveys.  That we could discredit just as easily.

Ours was inconclusive, even we discredit it.

We measured several known producers and marked each user's production rates on three separate, but similar, contracts, one single monitor, one dual, and another single.

They all knew we were measuring their productivity every time. On the whole the numbers were nearly flat, with a very slight increase with duals, around 0.02%

What made the blip in productivity was also interesting. While everyone else's productivity was very flat, two folks showed a marked jump in productivity, nearly 5 times the gains of the next highest producer.   

While their productivity gains were 5 times the next guy, it was still less than 9% for one and 10% for the other. One had a two week vacation in the middle of the dual test and the other had a divorce just before the dual test. We interviewed them about their techniques and found nothing outstanding.

All the participants were above average producers to start with, so a poor starting point was disqualified as a cause. All were self-starting, pretty hard working people so we discounted the "watching/sand-bag" factor as well.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One odd (maybe not so) thing we found by accident last year. Our internet service was down for 3 weeks one month, and we saw a 7% bump in productivity across the board. That one comes up in a meeting every now and then. 

[CADaver]

Sorry, not as yet.  Unless you wish to believe everything posted on the internet without substantiation.  Personally I choose to wait for real data.

I have hard proof here on my desk from an accredited survey/research firm.

Then post it.

I'd post the data, but I can't because it would then be posted on the internet, which you state doesn't make it true.   

Well just posting it on the internet DOESN'T make it true does it? (Do you believe everything on the 'net?)  Nor does it make the information false.  What would determine that is the data that supports the claim either way, data that can be substantiated.  You know, the "hard proof" you claim to have...  ... but then you know and I surmise that statement is one of "those" internet statements.

[ronjonp]

When are you guys gonna realize that once Randy's mind is made up.....arguing with him is like striking a conversation with a corpse....er Cadaver. 

Ron

[Krushert]

One odd (maybe not so) thing we found by accident last year. Our internet service was down for 3 weeks one month, and we saw a 7% bump in productivity across the board. That one comes up in a meeting every now and then. 

Randy,the jump in the numbers because since you could not debate anybody, you had to do real work.

But truth be told we have same issue here even out right complaining that the internet is down.

 

[CADaver]

When are you guys gonna realize that once Randy's mind is made up.....arguing with him is like striking a conversation with a corpse....er Cadaver.  :-

Gee Ron, that was my whole point in my first response to this thread.  My mind isn't made up, I'm looking for the proof that was claimed to be had.  If I had the proof, we'd have had dual monitors on every station long ago.  I keep hearing from folks, like EVERYONE posting here so far, that it is sooooo much more productive, but when pushed to back the statement up, the best I get is "it's obvious" or "its estimated that...".

When I go to the boss and tell him I need to spend an extra two hundred thousand dollars next year, he's going to want to know two things; "Why?", and "What's the pay-out?".  If I answer; "to put two monitors on every station" and "Isn't it obvious?", he'll be less than pleased and I won't get the money.


BTW, I personally prefer wide-format, but I have a mobility issue that most folks don't.

[Greg B]

Actually I don't know if they are better myself.  I still use a single 19" CRT.

I just think that some of the "proof" you are looking for HAS been posted, but it's not the type of proof you are looking for.

You are looking for hard numbers that really can not be gotten as the change from day to day, week to week.

Also with all the factors that figure in, you can never really get any accurate data.

Now if you ask whether a person feels more productive and thus is a happier employee, that in itself creates improved performance.

With the number of people backing the claim that dual monitors improves performance, you get the data you need to know that it's true.  No truer data then what this thread is.

[Keith™]

Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity

No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...

Somebody posted

According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity

Here is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.

Regardless of the quality of the surveys, regardless of the quality of the data or lack thereof, my statement was 100% true and correct. The surveys STILL state there is an increase in productivity. I cannot attest to the veracity of their statements, only that they have been made.
To that end, I could care less if duals increase productivity or if it gives employees a better chance to screw around. I never claimed they increased productivity. You have failed numerous times to accept that assertion. Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.

Well, previously you said you had 500 users ... are we to presume these guys do it all by hand now? I doubt that ... so if they do it now already using computers, you already have 500 monitors, thus you don't need to buy 2 each, just 1 each. Your excuses are beginning to get so convoluted and intertwined that you are making less and less sense as this discussion continues.

The bulk of those monitors are over three years old.  We replace between ten and fifteen machines a month, updating our entire inventory every forty-six to fifty months, give or take.  Our average use-life for monitors is right at four years (LCDs are doing a lot better than that), so the rotation is just about right.  We don't/won't add second monitors to existing stations, (especially if there is no benefit in the effort), we replace the older systems with new hardware including monitors.

Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,

a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)
b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)
c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)
d) The equipment is a depreciable asset that will cost the company about 51% of the sticker price. (Projected cost for a second 20" flat panel after tangible savings from tax writeoffs is about $98)
e) Projected improvement in productivity (by your own numbers) 0.02%

Lets see ...
500 users
Assuming a $100 billable rate 20 hours weekly per user (you can plug in your own numbers) assuming 2 weeks vacation per year per user
20X100X500X50 = $52,000,000 revenue generated
Lets assume an employee cost of $30 per hour
30x40x500x52 = $31,200,000 employee cost
Add a 0.02% productivity improvement
Billable time increases from 500,000 hours to 500,100 hours. An increase of $10,000 per year of billable time.
The average monitor will have a life span of 4 years
$10000X4 = $40k
Net cost of purchase $49k

Final expense = $2250 per year ($4.50 per employee per year)

Furthermore, you will likely attain a much more favorable number of billable hours, likely in the 30 to 35 hour range, meaning that even a small improvement as little as 0.02% can reap positives on the bottom line beginning in the first year. Then lets add another discount on the cost of the equipment (I figured at retail) because you will be buying in large quanities and will be able to command a much lower price .. perhaps as much as 10% ... then given the above scenario, you will be making about $5 per user per year over the life of the monitor. (not to mention the income generated from the secondary market for the monitors after you take them out of service).

If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.

[CADaver]

I just think that some of the "proof" you are looking for HAS been posted, but it's not the type of proof you are looking for.

No proof has been posted, just statements that they are.

You are looking for hard numbers that really can not be gotten as the change from day to day, week to week.

Sure they can, you just have to sample over a much longer period.

Also with all the factors that figure in, you can never really get any accurate data.

all those same factors affect the productivity of every job and must be accurately forcast, tracked, managed, and reported

Now if you ask whether a person feels more productive and thus is a happier employee, that in itself creates improved performance.

Happier employees can be had a lot cheaper than a second monitor.

With the number of people backing the claim that dual monitors improves performance, you get the data you need to know that it's true.  No truer data then what this thread is.

So your position is that if enough people say it's true, then its automatically true?? ...okay.

[Greg B]

So your position is that if enough people say it's true, then its automatically true?? ...okay.

Depends on the situation, but yeah.


OH and I now have first hand experience that employees can NOT be happier at a cheaper cost.

[sinc]

At home, I have one 20" and one 17" monitor.  At work, it's just a single 20".

For general use, I find that I prefer my setup at home, with two monitors, but it doesn't really seem to cause much difference as far as general productivity.  It is just a lot nicer, and I like it a lot more.  The trick I mentioned (probably in the thread about Lessons Learned from C3D) of pulling in the left and right sides of the main window, and then placing Palettes in the gap and setting them to Autohide, works well.  It is sometimes too-easy to unroll a Palette I'm not interested in, but in general, it works almost as well as the two-monitor setup.

Where that really changes is when I'm writing something like an Article explaining how to use some aspect of some program or other, or when answering questions on forums like this.  I like being able to open Land Desktop or C3D on one monitor, while my web browser or editor is on the other monitor.  That setup makes a SIGNIFICANT difference - it is much easier to write what I'm writing when I can see the example as I write, rather than constantly moving windows to the front or back.  It might make a 2x improvement, but that's probably stretching it.

[CADaver]

Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity

No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...

Somebody posted

According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity

Here is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.

Okay let's back up then shall we.  You did post this statement "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."  Did you not?  Our contention may be caused by the concept of "support".  Support is data that "supports" the conclusion.  If you amend your position to be "there is a wide held belief they do, "promoted" by surveys" then our contention will evaporate.  As I have posted several times now none of the surveys I've found, including those posted here "support" the "widely held belief"

Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.

I don't think I ever asked you for any kind of data, merely pointed out that the surveys you claimed "supported" the conclusion, in fact did not.  And yes my issue has always been the purveyors of the surveys.

Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,

No change in my statement, merely a change in your assumptions from less informed to more informed about what we do.

a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)

We have a corporate supplier that supplies single monitor cards by default

b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)

Some we do some we don't.  The base machine is the same for all users, monitors change depending on usage.

c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)

The corporate base machine comes setup.  Setting up additional hardware comes out of our budget.

If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.

First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration.  Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users.  Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all.  That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive

[Keith™]

Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity

No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...

Somebody posted

According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity

Here is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.

Okay let's back up then shall we.  You did post this statement "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."  Did you not?  Our contention may be caused by the concept of "support".  Support is data that "supports" the conclusion.  If you amend your position to be "there is a wide held belief they do, "promoted" by surveys" then our contention will evaporate.  As I have posted several times now none of the surveys I've found, including those posted here "support" the "widely held belief"

Incorrect ... you are still confusing the data of the survey (which we don't know what it is) with the data containing the survey, which we DO know what it is. My data set included 1 survey which you cannot access fully, and references to 2 other surveys. My data set included 3 pieces of data, they ALL supported my comment. I never commented about the data in the individual surveys and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome.

If I say certain things appear blue, then you may say show me data supporting that. If I show you a box with a blue light in it, you can only accept that they appear blue as I didn't qualify the statement. You can argue that the object would not appear blue outside the box, but that it a different argument altogether.

Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.

I don't think I ever asked you for any kind of data, merely pointed out that the surveys you claimed "supported" the conclusion, in fact did not.  And yes my issue has always been the purveyors of the surveys.

 No I never said the surveys supported the conclusion, I stated the surveys supported my statement ... 2 completely different animals

Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,

No change in my statement, merely a change in your assumptions from less informed to more informed about what we do.

a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)

We have a corporate supplier that supplies single monitor cards by default

b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)

Some we do some we don't.  The base machine is the same for all users, monitors change depending on usage.

c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)

The corporate base machine comes setup.  Setting up additional hardware comes out of our budget.

If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.

First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration.  Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users.  Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all.  That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive

It appears to me then that you are being cheated on your hardware since even the cheapest of video cards nowadays have 2 outputs .. some have even more, especially the ones designed for graphic intensive work.
Perhaps you should find another supplier

[Krushert]

First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration.  Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users.  Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all.  That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive

Oohh Oohh Oohh
You getting me all excited over here.
Ahhh Memories. 
 

[CADaver]

Incorrect ... you are still confusing the data of the survey (which we don't know what it is) with the data containing the survey, which we DO know what it is. My data set included 1 survey which you cannot access fully, and references to 2 other surveys. My data set included 3 pieces of data, they ALL supported my comment. I never commented about the data in the individual surveys and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome.

If I say certain things appear blue, then you may say show me data supporting that. If I show you a box with a blue light in it, you can only accept that they appear blue as I didn't qualify the statement. You can argue that the object would not appear blue outside the box, but that it a different argument altogether.

You posted the following:

"My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."

Did you not? 

No I never said the surveys supported the conclusion, I stated the surveys supported my statement ... 2 completely different animals

You posted the following:

"My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."

Did you not? 
So far the posted surveys do NOT "support" the widely held belief, they merely make statements promoting that belief.

It appears to me then that you are being cheated on your hardware since even the cheapest of video cards nowadays have 2 outputs .. some have even more, especially the ones designed for graphic intensive work.

Distinctly possible, our corporate bean-counters got in-bed with a particular manufacturer several years ago to supply all our hardware.  Most of the guys that then have to manage that hardware are now stuck with that decision. To get anything EXCEPT the agreed upon hardware requires sufficient support to convince the bean-counters, which is the foundation for my initial question.

Perhaps you should find another supplier

MORE distinctly possible, but that’s not my call.