| layout | title | nav_order | has_children | has_toc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
default |
Supporting Research |
13 |
false |
false |
This section provides research and other evidence for each of the product categories recommended in this guide. Because of the nature of this topic, much of the research was funded by people trying to sell something. While many of these studies were carried out by universities, one should not ignore the potential for funding pressure. For this reason, I advise reading the research skeptically. Additionally, some of this research is based on an approximation of real-life workflows. Finally, some of this research may overlap, so you should not expect the gains to cleanly stack on top of each other.
Even when read skeptically, the evidence is compelling. My advice is to plan for the worst and consider the higher numbers and more qualitative data as potential upside. The ROI does not require wishful thinking.
Numbers are cited from primary source research, formally published literature reviews, and transitively through citations in whitepapers from reputable companies. Metrics gathered from surveys are included but will be identified as such. However, more qualitative and well-established information is sourced based on the quality of the explanation.
Whenever possible literature reviews will follow PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
If there is research here that is wrong, or there are more authoritative sources for correct information, please feel free to submit a GitHub issue that includes the alternative sources.
Benefits require: Monitors, Monitor Arms
Possibly depend on: Desk, Hub/Docking Station
Pfiffer Consulting ran a study on the use of 30" displays. It showed an approximately 20% gain in productivity over a 20" display.
From Productivity and Multi-Screen Displays conducted by the University of Utah:
Respondents got on task quicker, did the work faster, and got more of the work done with fewer errors in multi-screen configurations than with a single screen. They were 6 percent quicker to task, 7 percent faster on task, generated 10 percent more production, were 16 percent faster in production, had 33 percent fewer errors, and were 18 percent faster in errorless production. Multi-screens were seen as 29 percent more effective for tasks, 24 percent more comfortable to use in tasks, 17 percent easier to learn, 32 per cent faster to productive work, 19 percent easier for recovery from mistakes, 45 percent easier for task tracking, 28 percent easier in task focus, and 38 percent easier to move around sources of information.
User survey research conducted by JPR indicated that users believed a second monitor increased their productivity by 42%.
Research done by Microsoft in The Large Display User Experience has suggested a benefit to having small bezels on displays. All the recommended monitors have those small bezels.
The science of interruptions details the qualitative reasons for a second display.
The SURL Single vs. Dual Monitor Configuration study (cited by the linked Dell Whitepaper) produced the following statistics: Dual monitor users are 18% more efficient and switch windows 15% less frequently. From survey data gathered by this study: 91% are more satisfied with the configuration, believe it is twice as easy to find information, and 50% easier to recover from errors. 50% less eye strain was also reported.
Does Using Multiple Computer Monitors for Office Tasks Affect User Experience?: A Systematic Review Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 140 studies were identified and narrowed down to 18 applicable studies. Controlled laboratory studies demonstrate that multiple monitors may increase task efficiency with decreased desktop interaction. Implementing dual monitors is in line with users’ preference
Dell commissioned a user study on Dell Dock Productivity. It showed a 58% decrease in setup time, though the absolute amount of time saved was only 50 seconds. This is a convenience, but unless workers are constantly moving it likely isn't critical. However, flexibility can provide harder-to-quantify benefits. It also showed a 42% reduction in task completion time for common computer tasks. This is in line with other multi-monitor studies. This reduction should be attributed to the multiple monitors and not some innate characteristic of the dock. Docks can sometimes be required to support multiple monitor setups.
Benefits require: Desk, Desk Chair, Monitor Arms
Possibly depend on: Mouse, Keyboard
There are a huge number of studies on the effect of ergonomics on productivity. They show increased productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, and fewer worker compensation claims. We highlight a selection below:
The Productivity Consequences of Two Ergonomic Interventions showed a 17.7% increase in productivity, sourced from increased production and reduced absenteeism. This was in line with that produced by other studies such as the 17.6% shown in Promoting Health and Productivity in the Computerized Office (Dainoff et al).
Steelcase, the creator of the Leap V2 chair recommended in this guide, commissioned a study from the University of Texas entitled Leap’s Impact on Productivity and Health. They had a variety of productivity measures for different workplaces: showing a 17.8% improvement in taxes collected where that was the key metric, and an 8.3% increase in calls per hour in another company. Additionally, survey data reported statistically significantly lower musculoskeletal symptoms. They also found that discomfort increases over the workday were only slight, compared to the larger increases in the control group.
In The effectiveness of a chair intervention in the workplace to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms. A systematic review, the authors' review of the research determines that chair intervention reduced musculoskeletal pain in all cases.
What do the different ergonomic interventions accomplish in the workplace? A systematic review Following PRISMA guidelines, 2185 studies were identified, and narrowed down to 22 studies.
The impact of home office setup due to COVID-19 pandemic on IT professionals′ physical health: a systematic review Following PRISMA guidelines, 97 studies were identified, and narrowed down to 10 studies.
The Effects of a Workplace Sit–Stand Desk Intervention on Health and Productivity showed statistically significant self-reported improvements: ~20% productivity increase, ~30% engagement increase, ~30% general health increase and a ~20% reduction in neck/back pain.
Reducing occupational sitting time and improving worker health used an experience-sampling methodology to determine that the use of a standing desk reduced upper back and neck pain by 54%, and improved mood states.
The Impact of Active Workstations on Workplace Productivity and Performance: A Systematic Review Following PRISMA guidelines, 3303 studies were identified, and narrowed down to 7 studies. Small increases, did not harm productivity. Mostly on attention related tasks.
Benefits require: Input Devices: Mouse, Keyboard
Input devices have not been widely studied. We therefore will need to do more detective work and rely on more qualitative information to determine their effectiveness.
An experiment conducted at UC Berkley showed an average of 10WPM improvement with a mechanical keyboard over a regular keyboard, a > 10% improvement.
Mechanical and Membrane Keyboard Typing Assessment Using Surface Electromyography showed that mechanical keyboard caused less muscle activation, requiring less exertion than membrane keyboards.
Wirecutter details criteria to select a good mechanical keyboard.
By far the most conclusive data about an external mouse is that everyone should use one. From a study run by logitech, users are 50% more productive and 30% faster using an external mouse compared to a trackpad.
The impact of mouse weight and connection type on muscle activity and performance while gaming uses EMG measurement and determined that light wireless mice (as recommended in this guide) reduce muscle activity.
Benefits of alternative computer mouse designs: A systematic review of controlled trials showed that variations in mouse design had effects on productivity, with the standard mouse design being the most productive. The most important conclusion we can find here is that mice affect productivity.
Effects of Gain and Index of Difficulty on Mouse Movement Time and Fitts’ Law shows that the sensitivity of a mouse can have an effect on mouse targeting accuracy.
The Wirecutter has testing criteria for mice, and though subjective, it and almost every other review site recommended MX Master 3S as the best productivity mouse.
Benefits require: Conference Technology: Audio, Video, Illumination
, Reliable Internet
Since the pandemic there has been a significant amount of research done on video conferencing. Broadly, the goals are maximizing the quality of communication and minimizing fatigue.
Some advantages of video conferencing over high-quality audio conferencing: Fluency and awareness of attentional focus emphassizes the need for video communication, especially in dynamic conversation.
Given this pattern of results it is concluded that video can result in more fluent conversation, particularly where there are more than two discussants. However, in the case of dyadic conversation auditory cues to turn taking, etc., would seem to suffice. In both experiments there was a large and significant effect on interpersonal awareness as assessed by ratings of the illusion of presence, and most clearly, awareness of the attentional focus of the remote partner(s).
In the paper Effect of Videoconferencing Environments on Perception of Communication the importance of reliable internet was emphasized. Frame rate is critical to the interpretation of non-verbal queues, that can last between 50-200ms. Understanding non-verbal cues is critical to fluent communication. Additionally, if audio or video is resynchronized by more than 100ms, the benefits of video communication are lost. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of eye contact (which is facilitated by the setup)
Eye-contact is believed to be a very important nonverbal clue especially during communication in bigger groups, when it is used to indicate the next speaker or the receiver of current remarks. All of the aforesaid papers concur also in other functions of gaze awareness: it helps mutual understanding between speakers, facilitates turn taking as well as perception of other nonverbal signals included in communication.
The opposite of engagement is termed: Videoconferencing Fatigue, and should be avoided. In Videoconference Fatigue? Exploring Changes in Fatigue After Videoconference Meetings During COVID-19 the existance of video conference fatigue was confirmed by 92.9% of participants in the study. Turning off the webcam does not reduce fatigue. However a greater sense of group belonging, increased participation, and the ability to mute were critical in reducing this fatigue. The use of the hide self feature is useful. Establishing group norms as to what is expected from conferencing is also recommended to reduce fatigue and increase engagement.
The review paper Technological Factors Influencing Videoconferencing and Zoom Fatigue provides further corroboration to the information above. It also suggests using a better microphone and speakers to reduce audio fatigue and improve communication. Finally it leaves us with a critical warning that with standard video conference setups, people perceive others as being "less friendly, less active, less cheerful, less self- efficient, less achievement-striving, and less self-disciplined." This is precisely what must be combatted with appropriate setups.
Understanding videoconference fatigue: a systematic review of dimensions, antecedents and theories Following PRISMA guidelines, 34,565 studies were initially identified and narrowed down to 14 applicable studies.
Benefits require: Reliable Internet: Service, Standalone Modem, Reliable Router and WiFi
One of the critical benefits of reliable internet is described in the prior section on conferencing. But that is not the sum total of the benefits.
A Third of Remote Workers Say Weak Internet Has Hurt Their Productivity
- 65% mentioned that it cut out/froze/disconnect
- 1/3 said it prevents them from doing work
- 43% needed to use mobile hotspots to get their work done.
It follows that when employees suffer an internet outage, it severely hampers their productivity. But what about merely unreliable internet? For this we can turn to user experience research on latency. On an unreliable internet connection, latency can be dramatically increased.
The book Usability Engineering, presents 3 critical limits based on prior research:
0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result. 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data. 10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users will then not know what to expect
These guidelines were determined by human perception and cognition research and not completely tested. However the importance of low latency is corroborated by industry experience. In System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero Latency Really Considered Necessary?, a more modern literature review, the guideline of 100-200ms of latency is established. It is noted that higher complexity tasks can be done with higher latency, however many tasks programmers execute, be it scanning documentation, pushing small changes, examining traces, etc. are actually of relatively low complexity.
Finally, there is the less quantifiable benefit of being able to rely on your team being online. I was unable to find a study on the topic, though I would encourage one to be done.
Overall, reliable internet should provide sufficient benefits to significantly outweigh the costs.
Benefits require: Whiteboard
No one has really had to defend the whiteboard when it was an office tool and thus there are a serious dearth of studies on the topic. However in addition to the anecdotal data, there is reason to believe whiteboards are critical for everyone from the most junior to the most senior programmers.
In The Effect of Whiteboarding on Student Self-Efficacy in the Computer Science Classroom novice programmers were introduced to whiteboard coding for the first time.
According to the participants, whiteboarding played an essential role in the planning, writing, and verifying stages of problem solving. Many of the participants mentioned that using the whiteboard slowed the planning process down, forcing them to think through the problem, resulting in fewer mistakes and higher self-confidence. The study also showed a statistically significant increase in debugging confidence and results.
Google has shown that whiteboard designs are a critical prerequisite to Non-Abstract Design. Non-Abstract system design has been used successfully in a number of google products and is becoming the industry standard. There is a reason that a "whiteboard" system design interview is part of almost every hiring process. It is a representative tool, not purely a testing method.
Benefits require: Password Manager
The main data in favor of password managers is data on what users do in their absence. The 2020 State of Password and Authentication Security Behaviors Report presents a number of disturbing statistics:
- 50% of IT security professionals reuse passwords across accounts
- 49% of IT security professions share passwords either frequently or semi-regularly
- 59% of organizations rely on human memory for passwords, 42% use sticky notes, 29% use spreadsheets (One organization can do one or more of these things)
Password managers can significantly improve or eliminate the risks discussed above. Yet only 31% of organizations use a password manager. This should increase to 100%.
| Next: Acknowledgments|