4 ms·

This is a year old post although the title is very attractive. Does anyone now a newer, more comprehensive and scientifically solid article having the same clai

by ozgung 14y ago

This is a year old post although the title is very attractive. Does anyone now a newer, more comprehensive and scientifically solid article having the same claim?

lutusp 14y ago
> Does anyone now a newer, more comprehensive and scientifically solid article having the same claim? As to "scientifically solid", you may be reaching beyond the plausible. Such studies are in the domain of sociology, and sociology is less scientific even than psychology (in fact, sociology is located at the very bottom of the science heap). One reason is the fact that you can't run controlled experiments with such luxuries as control groups and experimental discipline.
- ozgung 14y ago
  Thanks, you're right. What I really meant was something backed by data. This is more about business management practices or motivational psychology and "optimum working hours" must be a well studied topic. There must be more than some weak anecdotal arguments about Sheryl Sandberg or Ford Motor Company in early 1900s.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    There was a presentation given by a programmer that looked at the research. I seem to recall that 40 hours was optimal for manual labour but it was actually less for mental work like programming, but the real kicker was it compared actual productivity with self-perceived productivity and claimed that you felt like you were making progress even when you weren't. This isn't the presentation I was thinking of, but it covers similar ground (and quotes 35 hours as the optimum for brain-based work): http://fr.slideshare.net/flowtown/rules-of-productivity-2756161 http://fr.slideshare.net/flowtown/rules-of-productivity-2756...
  - MortenK 14y ago
    You can check out a few classics on developer productivity: Frederick Brooks' "Mythical man-month" and Tom Demarco's "Slack". As far as I recall, they both go into concrete data about the productivity drop-off that ensues after +40 hours for extended periods of time.

by ozgung 14y ago

This is a year old post although the title is very attractive. Does anyone now a newer, more comprehensive and scientifically solid article having the same claim?

lutusp 14y ago

> Does anyone now a newer, more comprehensive and scientifically solid article having the same claim? As to "scientifically solid", you may be reaching beyond the plausible. Such studies are in the domain of sociology, and sociology is less scientific even than psychology (in fact, sociology is located at the very bottom of the science heap). One reason is the fact that you can't run controlled experiments with such luxuries as control groups and experimental discipline.

ozgung 14y ago
Thanks, you're right. What I really meant was something backed by data. This is more about business management practices or motivational psychology and "optimum working hours" must be a well studied topic. There must be more than some weak anecdotal arguments about Sheryl Sandberg or Ford Motor Company in early 1900s.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  There was a presentation given by a programmer that looked at the research. I seem to recall that 40 hours was optimal for manual labour but it was actually less for mental work like programming, but the real kicker was it compared actual productivity with self-perceived productivity and claimed that you felt like you were making progress even when you weren't. This isn't the presentation I was thinking of, but it covers similar ground (and quotes 35 hours as the optimum for brain-based work): http://fr.slideshare.net/flowtown/rules-of-productivity-2756161 http://fr.slideshare.net/flowtown/rules-of-productivity-2756...
- MortenK 14y ago
  You can check out a few classics on developer productivity: Frederick Brooks' "Mythical man-month" and Tom Demarco's "Slack". As far as I recall, they both go into concrete data about the productivity drop-off that ensues after +40 hours for extended periods of time.