temporal phase shift

"Temporal phase shift" suddenly appeared in my mind while I was on my way home and while I was wondering what it meant, I googled and figured that it most probably was something I learnt in some yucky signals or electrical engineering related module which I didn't comprehend a word.

What was really in my mind at that point in time was "opportunity cost" and "diminishing rate of return".

How I really was feeling was exhaustion due to a very frantic past two months due to massive temporary exodus of keyboard warriors and telephone operators, hence resulting in a lots of interference when calls go hunting down the line.

Why I was feeling as such was most probably due to the fact that I could not complete anything that I had planned to complete in that two months.

Who could have caused that feeling was most probably my upper food chains that have been introducing interrupt requests, race conditions, asynchronous interrupt and acknowledge intervals, buffer overflow, timeout connections, or simply entertaining slow loris'.

Collectively, that could be the enlightened term - "temporal phase shift".

I was looking back at the time I spent on work and divided them into either 1. I didn't learn anything; 2. I learnt something.

Here is my analysis of opportunity costs for the two categories of work:

1. I didn't learn anything. What this probably could be will range from something like copy and paste 1000 times, to explaining the security requirements in the specifications. From an efficiency point of view, I probably was able to complete the unit task in a very short time. By that I don't mean I spend a short time on the task in totality, but when divided to a unit task, it's short. For example, copy and paste 1000 times will take 1 second per copy and paste, as compared with someone who needs to learn how to copy and paste and spend 1 minute per copy and paste. From a productivity point of view, which looks at the time spent on the total task, the longer I spend on a task of this nature, the higher the opportunity cost to the organisation because it means that I am over qualified for the job scope and I had to sacrifice some other work in place for the 1000 copy and paste for example. From an effectiveness point of view of the one who assigns me the task, it's very effective because I can complete the task in a short time and he/she can meet his objective earlier, but from an organisation point of view, localised effectiveness will forsake overall organisational or divisional operational effectiveness. Hence, diminishing rate of return.

2. I learnt something. By now, you should understand what this category means - basically it is something which I had to spend more than average time to get it done. For example, it can range from learning how to fix the table headers for tables that span over many pages, or how to pay an invoice, to learning how to ensure that your boss doesn't screw up and create more work for you. The last part was just an illustration and any resemblance is coincidental. From an efficiency point of view, I will be utterly inefficient, hence rendering me ineffective and unproductive. For example, having to spend 1000 minutes to complete 1000 copy and paste as compared with another keyboard warrior who can complete 1000 copy and paste in 1000 seconds. The organisation pays for my 1000 minutes to learn how to copy and paste 1000 times, and that's the opportunity cost. However, if my main job scope is to specialise in copy and paste, then this would have a lower opportunity cost as I gradually complete my task (over someone whose main job scope isnt copy and paste) and increasing rate of return because the more I practise, the better I will become at copy and paste - potentially 1000 seconds if i master the technique from the other guy who can complete in 1000 seconds.

I wasn't doing 1000 times of copy and paste, but close. The optimal work assignment is to assign the didnt-learn-anything work to people who can complete in short spurts, much like how you queue 4 hours to see a specialist for 2 minutes and pay $200, and allow the specialist to delegate the routine check up work to the i-learnt-something person who will have increasing rate of return. After some time, the i-learnt-something person will feel that he has diminishing rate of returns and that is when his opportunity cost is reduced, the organisation gains the productivity and then move him into something else where he can reset his equilibrium. In this aspect, the specialists need to be given some space to also learn something, else they risk diminishing rate of return and lower organisational effectiveness, even though they charge $200 for 2 minutes of consultation.