To make it short: Humans are not good at multitasking.

Yet, knowledge workers in Corporate America are being asked to do exactly that. They are being expected to stay on top of incoming email exceeding easily hundred, in some cases hundreds a day. They are being asked to be reachable, go to meetings and handle multiple assignments with ease.  Multitasking is seen as a virtue. The ability to do so receives praise. However, multitasking comes at a significant cost.

In my work with knowledge workers, I find many examples that show that our brains cannot fully focus when we multitask. People take longer to complete tasks and are predisposed to error. When we attempt to complete many tasks at one time, or rapidly shift between them, errors go way up and it takes far longer. It takes more time to get the jobs done than if the tasks were done sequentially. This is largely because the brain is forced to restart and refocus. A study found that in the interim between each exchange, the brain makes no progress whatsoever. Therefore, multitasking people not only perform each task less suitabe, but lose time in the process.

Even computers are not good at multitasking as we find out when we open too many applications and windows on our desktop machines. Our system slows down and sometimes comes even to a stop. We need to reboot then. In computer science speak this effect is called “thrashing”. Our computers use hard-drives as extended memories. If they cannot hold enough data in their memories they push them out to disk. If you have enough applications running in parallel the system performance is reduced because files have to be swapped from the computer memory to the hard-disk back and forth. You can bring any computer system to its knees by increasing the number of parallel processes.

A similar thing happens with the human brain. Let’s say we write a document (task 1) and get interrupted by a phone call (task 2). 

1. Writing a document requires focus. Blood rushes to the anterior prefrontal cortex – the switchboard of our brain. It basically activates the brain region required to perform the task at hand.
2. Then there is the identification of the neurons within this region capable of completing the task as well as the triggering of the actual task processing itself. This process is called “rule activation” and takes several tenths of a second to accomplish. We begin to write.
3. While we are typing, our sensory system picks up the ring tone of our cell phone. Speaking and engaging in conversation are handled by a different brain region. Via the anterior prefrontal cortex the process of disengaging from our writing task is managed. We store enough information to resume this task later. Then, the new task 2 is started (see steps 1 and 2).
4. We start another rule activation for task 2. We have real measurable switching costs.

These are the steps that occur between two tasks. Imagine to what extent we are taxed with switching costs in a work environment, where we process daily hundreds of emails, tens of calls and deal with multiple project assignments. Anything that can be done to bring focus in the work day, anything that can be done to bring hours of uninterrupted work time will enhance productivity.

I have found in my work with corporate clients that people who are regularly interrupted take up to fifty percent (50%) longer to finish their tasks. Also, the amount of errors goes up about that much. There are very effective excercises to demonstrate this effect. Keep that in mind when you organize your day.

Here is how it feels to have momentum. The phones are ringing. We don’t have time to read the morning newspaper because we have a tough time keeping up with the proposals we need to review and the contracts we need to read. Our delivery teams are busy. At the water cooler people talk about their premier airline status. We try to squeeze more functionality into the next release to make clients happy. We look at new hires, we even find more office space. The company is buzzing.  The opposite of momentum is imply silence.

We all like to see the former, and we all dread the latter. The recession is over, but we are very far away from a booming economy. What are the lessons learned from the last few years operating in an economy that is trending sideways at best? How do you create momentum? What can we do to make our customers believe in our company and our solution? What can you do to make your own people believe they can make the “impossible” possible?

Here are five lessons learned while operating successfully in a tough market environment.

1. Messaging – In any economy, our messages should be customer-focused, not product-focused. We need to know what the pain points are of our customers and how we can address them. Keep in mind that in a tough economy, customers’ needs and concerns change.  We need to adjust our messaging accordingly

• Demonstrate value and return on investment. This can be done by pointing out that customers can do more with less, by simplifying a process or enhancing the value of our client’s offering. For example, if your product is exceptionally easy to use, you can demonstrate how the improved ease  translates into savings.
• Decision-makers are increasingly worried about their jobs, too. They need to understand how to enter a relationship with us safely.

2. Laser focus on target markets – If business gets tough the natural inclination is to chase every opportunity in order not to miss out. Someone drowning in the ocean flails frantically trying to keep his head above the water. I would recommend the opposite approach. Use coordinated strokes to keep your company’s head above the waterline.

• Have laser focus on the core companies and industries that can use your products or services. Make sure that you truly provide value and then pursue these markets relentlessly. Instead of simply increasing the “shots on goal” increase the quality of your company’s pipeline.
• In tough times, businesses will enter a relationship with our organization if we provide them with good reasons. (e.g strategic reasons, operational efficiencies, ROI).

3. Pricing – Take a look at your approach to pricing. This doesn’t mean you should enter deals at steep discounts, but here are some options to consider.

• Update pricing models. If we have been selling bundled products, consider un-bundling and offering products/solutions in smaller chunks. A number of smaller deals is better than no sale at all.
• Consider try-and-buy offers. Give customers a taste of the solution and, assuming the product or service is as irresistible as you know it is, you will only defer revenue briefly. This also helps to reduce the perceived risk of your customer betting her career on entering a relationship with your company.

4. Engage customers – Focus the marketing on “conversations” with customers. The days of one-way marketing are over. Customers want to talk with you on their terms, so narrow the gap. Make it personal. Be accessible.

• Nurture prospects until they are ready to do business.
• Encourage customers to be part of the conversation by building online communities that provide value to them while keeping you front-of-mind.
• Stay close to existing customers and maintain the relationships. Customer events such as user conferences are a great way to accomplish that.

5. Internal communication – Make sure that the people in the organization share your convictions. They need to believe that the goals for the company are achievable.  And they need to see the path. Be authentic in the way you deliver your strategy within the organization.

The generic drugs sector’s role as the provider of affordable drugs has widely benefitted public and private health payers keen to control costs. But in the current economic climate, downward pressure on prices is impacting the generic sector, with increases in acquisition and strategic partnering now firmly part of the competitive landscape.

According to a UK based medical and pharmaceutical market analysis publisher Espicom’s report, ‘Generic Drugs: Global Collaboration Opportunities’, branded and generic companies should consider greater partnering as part of their current strategy and identifies 160 generic drugs manufacturers worldwide as key targets.

The report analyses a wide variety of generic companies located in 35 countries, from specialist players concentrating on specific therapies to broadly based providers active in many markets. The size and value of the companies is broad, too, with among the largest being Hypermarcas in Brazil and R-Pharm in Russia.

The generic sector is also being targeted strategically by the branded industry, Pfizer’s little known Greenstone subsidiary is just one of several developments in the generic area the company is undertaking, while sanofi’s ambitions for Japanese generics are realised through its joint venture with Nichi-Iko.

Ian Platts, generic drug sector analyst at Espicom and the report’s author, comments, “The SME generic drug sector is at a crossroads. The rise of biosimilars will mean most medium sized companies will have to compete on a diminishing number of non biological and aging products. It makes good strategic sense to be expanding or developing collaborative working as a means of entering new market environments or securing market share”.

Source: BioSpectrum.com (Dec 2011)