Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule: The Cost of Context Switching in Software Development
It is true - there is tension between the need for focused work and the demands of a collaborative environment. This tension is nicely encapsulated by the concept of the "Maker's Schedule" versus the "Manager's Schedule," an idea popularized by Paul Graham.
The Two Schedules
Manager's Schedule
Typically broken into 1-hour (or smaller) blocks
Switching tasks every hour feels kinda natural
Meetings don't disrupt the flow; they are the flow
Maker's Schedule
Requires long, uninterrupted blocks of time (usually half a day or more)
Deep focus is essential for complex problem-solving and creative work
A single meeting can derail productivity for an entire day
The Context Switching Conundrum
For software developers, who operate on a maker's schedule, context switching is particularly costly. Here's why:
Mental Model Disruption: Building complex systems requires holding intricate mental models. Each switch fractures these models, requiring significant time to rebuild.
Flow State Interruption: Developers often need to enter a 'flow state' for peak productivity. Context switches abruptly end these states, which can take hours to re-enter.
Increased Error Rates: Rapid task switching leads to more mistakes, as the nuances of each task aren't fully loaded into working memory.
Productivity Loss: Studies suggest it can take up to 23 minutes to fully regain focus after a switch. In a day with multiple switches, this can amount to hours of lost productivity.
Project Timeline Expansion: With reduced deep work time, projects naturally take longer to complete, often with lower quality outcomes.
Strategies for Harmonizing Schedules
The conflict arises when the manager's schedule imposes itself on the maker's schedule. A single mid-day meeting can split a developer's day into two less productive parts, effectively eliminating the possibility of deep work.
Establish Maker Days: Designate certain days as meeting-free, allowing developers to work on a true maker's schedule.
Time Blocking: Use techniques like time blocking to create large, uninterrupted chunks for deep work.
Asynchronous Communication: Leverage tools for asynchronous updates to reduce the need for disruptive real-time meetings.
Meeting Batching: When meetings are necessary, try to batch them together at the start or end of the day to preserve larger blocks of focus time.
Educate Stakeholders: Help managers and other team members understand the maker's schedule and the cost of interruptions.
Improve Documentation: Good documentation can reduce the need for interruptions and make context switches less costly when they do occur.
Mindful Task Switching: When switches are unavoidable, use techniques like writing down your current thought process before switching, to make it easier to resume later.
Challenges Will Remain
Today, it is quite obvious and clear to everyone that constant context switching is bad for productivity. But because the cost is somewhat hidden, the issue tends to be forgotten and not taken seriously, especially in large corporate environments. By understanding and respecting the need for long, uninterrupted periods of focus, teams can create environments that foster both deep work and necessary collaboration.
The goal isn't to eliminate all context switching—that's neither possible nor desirable in a collaborative field like software development. Instead, we should strive to create a balance that respects the maker's need for deep focus while accommodating the necessary interruptions of a dynamic work environment.
By implementing strategies that protect the maker's schedule, we can reduce the hidden costs of context switching, leading to higher quality code, more satisfied developers, and ultimately, more successful projects.