A Matter of Balance: Specialization, Task Variety, and Individual Learning in a Software Maintenance Environment
Abstract
Specialization at work has been recognized as a key driver of learning and productivity since the days of Adam Smith. More recently, researchers have noted that exposure to task variety can enhance learning. We examine how exposure to specialization and variety jointly drive employee productivity in a real-life setting. We analyze a data set covering 88 individuals who worked on 5,711 maintenance tasks in an offshore software support services operation. We find that, as expected, specialization enhances productivity. However, exposure to variety has a nonlinear influence on productivity; i.e., “too much variety” can impede learning. We also find that achieving a proper balance between specialization and exposure to a variety leads to the highest productivity. We capture this balance using an adaptation of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from the economics literature. In addition, we examine how the productivity of individuals in a workgroup is affected by member entry and exit, with the latter specified in terms of the degree of specialized experience and the degree of variety experience lost from the workgroup when a member exits. Our analysis reveals that the degree of variety experience lost has a greater impact on productivity than the degree of specialized experience that is lost.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Learning-by-doing is especially important when learning to code.
“Such learning-by-doing is especially important when learning to code (Narayanan et al. 2009).”
From AI Meets the Classroom: When Do Large Language Models Harm Learning? (2024) · cites this paper as Narayanan et al. 2009
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942 · see citing works
Bounded rationality and organizational learning
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125 · Cited by 3,028 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122 · Cited by 1,198 · see citing works
Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging connections
Cohen, M. D. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.135 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Circuits controlling vertebrate locomotion: moving in a new direction
Goulding, M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2608 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
AI Meets the Classroom: When Do Large Language Models Harm Learning?
Lehmann, M., Cornelius, P. B., & Sting, F. J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.09047 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Narayanan, S., Balasubramanian, S., & Swaminathan, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1861-1876
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2157307214
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 11.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- specialization, task variety, individual learning, labor productivity, software maintenance, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, knowledge transfer
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