CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Personal Information Management and User BehaviorPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

To Plan or Not to Plan? A Mixed-Methods Diary Study Examining When, How and Why Knowledge Work Planning is Inaccurate

Open access
Ahmetoglu, Yoana, Brumby, Duncan P., Cox, Anna L.·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3432921
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reliable and accurate planning is essential for modern knowledge workers. However, there is limited insight about when, how and why planning is inaccurate, and the circumstances in which those inaccuracies are troublesome. To investigate this, we asked 20 academics to keep a diary for a single work day. They estimated the duration of the tasks they wanted to achieve at the start of the day and noted down in detail the tasks they actually achieved during the day. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to complement this diary data. The diaries showed that some tasks, such as email and coding, were more susceptible to time underestimation bias while other tasks, such as writing and planning, were more susceptible to time overestimation bias in planning. Based on interviews, a typology of common reasons for delays in planned daily work is presented. It suggests that vague and optimistic planning leads to the observed discrepancy between planned and actual work. Finally, interviews suggested that participants adopted four planning strategies that vary in the frequency of planning, from minimal planning to daily, weekly and multi-level planning. We close by discussing ways support systems for accurate planning can be better designed for different use cases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3432921

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People can engage in multi-level planning, where hours, days, and weeks have to be considered simultaneously.

    “For example, people can engage in multi-level planning, where hours, days, and weeks have to be considered simultaneously [6].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. R. S. Gajendran, D. A. Harrison, The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and indi- vidual consequences., Journal of applied psychology 92 (6) (2007) 1524.
  2. A. K. MacLeod, E. Coates, J. Hetherton, Increasing well-being through teaching goal-setting and planning skills: Results of a brief intervention, Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (2) (2008) 185-196.
  3. M. Haraty, J. McGrenere, C. Tang, How and why personal task manage- ment behaviors change over time, in: Proceedings of the 41st Graphics Interface Conference, 2015, pp. 147-154.
  4. R. Buehler, D. Griffin, J. Peetz, The planning fallacy: Cognitive, motiva- tional, and social origins, in: Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 43, Elsevier, 2010, pp. 1-62.
  5. V. Bellotti, B. Dalal, N. Good, P. Flynn, D. G. Bobrow, N. Ducheneaut, What a to-do: studies of task management towards the design of a personal task list manager, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2004, pp. 735-742.
  6. L. A. Suchman, Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication, Cambridge university press, 1987.
  7. I. Redaelli, A. Carassa, New perspectives on plans: Studying planning as an instance of instructed action, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27 (1) (2018) 107-148.
  8. C. Bossen, R. Markussen, Infrastructuring and ordering devices in health care: Medication plans and practices on a hospital ward, Com- put. Supported Coop. Work 19 (6) (2010) 615-637. doi:10.1007/ s10606-010-9131-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9131-x · DOI
  9. J. E. Bardram, T. R. Hansen, Why the plan doesn't hold: a study of sit- uated planning, articulation and coordination work in a surgical ward, in: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooper- ative work, 2010, pp. 331-340.
  10. J. E. Bardram, Plans as situated action: an activity theory approach to workflow systems, in: Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Springer, 1997, pp. 17-32.
  11. W. M. Newman, Busy days: exposing temporal metrics, problems and elasticities through diary studies, in: CHI 2004 Workshop on Temporal Issues in Work, Citeseer, 2004.
  12. S. Koole, M. van't Spijker, Overcoming the planning fallacy through willpower: effects of implementation intentions on actual and predicted task-completion times, European Journal of Social Psychology 30 (6) (2000) 873-888.
  13. K. E. Thomas, S. E. Newstead, S. J. Handley, Exploring the time prediction process: The effects of task experience and complexity on prediction accu- racy, Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 17 (6) (2003) 655-673.
  14. M. Eldridge, W. Newman, Agenda benders: modelling the disruptions caused by technology failures in the workplace, in: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1996, pp. 219-220.
  15. M. Haraty, D. Tam, S. Haddad, J. McGrenere, C. Tang, Individual differ- ences in personal task management: a field study in an academic setting, in: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2012, 2012, pp. 35-44.
  16. M. Haraty, J. McGrenere, C. Tang, How personal task management differs across individuals, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 88 (2016) 13-37.
  17. E. Kimani, K. Rowan, D. McDuff, M. Czerwinski, G. Mark, A conversa- tional agent in support of productivity and wellbeing at work, in: 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interac- tion (ACII), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1-7.
  18. A. N. Meyer, G. C. Murphy, T. Zimmermann, T. Fritz, Enabling good work habits in software developers through reflective goal-setting, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2019).
  19. K. Moløkken, M. Jørgensen, A review of surveys on software effort estima- tion (2003).
  20. L. Suchman, L. A. Suchman, Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, Cambridge university press, 2007.
  21. J. D. Blackburn, G. D. Scudder, L. N. Van Wassenhove, Improving speed and productivity of software development: a global survey of software devel- opers, IEEE transactions on software engineering 22 (12) (1996) 875-885.
  22. A. Bradley, D. P. Brumby, A. L. Cox, J. Bird, How to manage your inbox: Is a once a day strategy best?, in: Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, BCS-HCI '13, BCS Learning Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, 2013.
  23. J. Jin, L. A. Dabbish, Self-interruption on the computer: a typology of discretionary task interleaving, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2009, pp. 1799-1808.
  24. J. Kruger, M. Evans, If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (5) (2004) 586-598.
  25. J. Peetz, R. Buehler, A. Wilson, Planning for the near and distant future: How does temporal distance affect task completion predictions?, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (5) (2010) 709-720.
  26. G. Mark, S. T. Iqbal, M. Czerwinski, P. Johns, Bored mondays and focused afternoons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2014, pp. 3025-3034.
  27. B. Tag, A. W. Vargo, A. Gupta, G. Chernyshov, K. Kunze, T. Dingler, Continuous alertness assessments: Using eog glasses to unobtrusively mon- itor fatigue levels in-the-wild, in: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1-12.
  28. R. W. White, A. Hassan Awadallah, Task duration estimation, in: Pro- ceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, 2019, pp. 636-644.
  29. J. Cheng, J. Teevan, S. T. Iqbal, M. S. Bernstein, Break it down: A com- parison of macro-and microtasks, in: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2015, pp. 4061-4064.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmetoglu, Y., Brumby, D. P., & Cox, A. L.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2021-01-05
Volume
4
Issue
CSCW3
Pages
1-20
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3432921
OpenAlex
W3120351988
Cited by
21
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
UCL Division of Psychology and Language Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
knowledge work, planning accuracy, time underestimation, task delay, planning strategies, university faculty, planning support systems, diary study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review