Paper

The other day I got a copy of this article, and as if to help to make the point of the article I got it as hardcopy in my box rather than as a forwarded email. The reader's digest version is that although people keep trying to create a paperless office that it will never happen, and that there are actually heuristic and social advantages to paper over virtual documents.

The article is a review of the book "The Myth of the Paperless Office."

Really I think this person got it wrong. Their biggest issues seem to be over collaboration, mark up, and organization. They go at these things with an analysis of affordances which talks about the things that physical paper actually allows one to do.

I haven't read the book, but the synopsis of the argument seems awfully shortsighted. The lack of traction of paperless processes seem to me to be more about what virtual documents can't do yet rather than any special properties of paper documents. Actually, in many cases it isn't even things that paperless systems can't do yet, but rather the expense of getting set up to deal with things virtually combined with traditional practice - an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude.

In one case, talking about collaboration, the article quotes the book:

"Because paper is a physical embodiment of information, actions performed in relation to paper are, to a large extent, made visible to one's colleagues. Reviewers sitting around a desk could tell whether a colleague was turning toward or away from a report; whether she was flicking through it or setting it aside. Contrast this with watching someone across a desk looking at a document on a laptop. What are they looking at? Where in the document are they? Are they really reading their e-mail? Knowing these things is important because they help a group coordinate its discussions and reach a shared understanding of what is being discussed"

So this is saying that the actual handling of a document tells us something about the content of the document, and gives us the tremendous insight that something hidden on a laptop screen is inaccessible to the rest of the room.

But why on Earth if the purpose was to discuss a report would one have it on a laptop screen?

Proper implementation in this case would be to utilize a projector so that everyone could see. To make it worse, I have been in meetings where we have used multiple copies of paper documents and nobody is going to notice whether the speaker is turning toward or away because their own eyes are buried in the text of their document copy. Having been in meeting using a projector and meetings with reams of paper, I much prefer the projector.

Seems to me the large impediment here is the cost of the projector, not what you gain from having hardcopy documents at the meeting.

Next the author goes on to talk about organization & archiving:

"The correspondence, notes, and other documents such discussions would produce formed a significant part of the documents buyers kept. These materials therefore supported rather than constituted the expertise of the buyers. In other words, the knowledge existed not so much in the documents as in the heads of the people who owned them—in their memories of what the documents were, in their knowledge of the history of that supplier relationship, and in the recollections that were prompted whenever they went through the files."

Again, this doesn't seem to be about paper at all, but rather about remembering to archive things. Does it matter if it is scraps of paper or if it is a scan of scraps of paper, or something scribbled on a PDA, or even an audio clip from a voice recorder? One job I had convinced me that one of the golden rules of commercial theatre is that there will be nothing in the file except fax cover sheets. Nobody ever took the time to archive anything. The important thing is to make sure the right things get in the file, not what format they are in. If everything would be transcribed and saved, not only would you have it, but it would be searchable. Even if this were just scans of notes, it could still be tagged to be searchable, a vast improvement on a paper file.

This section also talks a lot about piles. That people that have desk jobs like to have things in piles, and that there are inherent informational tags demonstrated by the kind of piling. Now, its hard to argue that the closest pile is probably the most urgent things, and the top of that pile the most of the most; but really, this is making lemonade from lemons. Clearly a file folder labeled "most urgent" would be better than a pile placed closest to the 18" square of clear space next to the computer keyboard. Aside from other things, that space is most likely to get coffee spilled on it, or be covered from the last comparably unimportant thing to find its way onto your desk.

My desk, or rather the credenza I got specifically to deal with the problem, at work is covered with piles. At least it is when I am able to wrangle things long enough to make piles. Often it is one large pile, or more like a smear as I try not to cover things I might need soon. But this is in no way an optimal practice for my deskwork. I don't do it because it is easier or more efficient. I do it because I have too much to do.

In two previous desk jobs I was able to keep things nicely broken out and in their places so that I always had what I needed at my fingertips. If I needed pricing I went to the pricing binder. If I needed information about a project I went in that project's folder. I almost never had the blizzard of paper on my desk I so often have now. Piles are not about piles being good, piles are about being just a little less organized and not having enough time (or choosing to prioritize other things in such a way) to do things properly.

Also, we once had a time management expert come in and talk to our students. He had numbers regarding "pile document management." The assertion was that for ever 8 hours of work the average person spends 10 minutes looking for things in piles. That would mean at the end of a typical week that average office worker had basically wasted an hour and 20 minutes searching through piles. And that's an average week, people in my business don't work average weeks.

As further evidence, I would also argue that the piling behavior doesn't limit itself to the hardcopy world. People who manage by piles also use virtual piles, often having a single folder for documents on their hard drive and managing hundreds of messages in their inbox rather than create a directory structure. Surely the advantages for this type of behavior sighted in a paper world don't exist in a paperless one.

Curiously, even though I am barely able to keep the piles from forming on the credenza, my virtual desktop is very orderly with project and resource folders right where I need them. Maybe I ought to start scanning everything as it comes into my office and then filing it right in the recycling. I'd need a big hard drive - but why would that be a problem? The school tells us we are supposed to archive every assignment given to us for 5 years. If I did that I would almost certainly have to do it virtually.

I've begun to ramble, but the point was that I can't see any real organizational or archival advantages to hardcopy.

The argument also makes a lot of references to the ability on hardcopy to make notes in the margin. Just two days ago I was working with a meeting program that allowed the user to simultaneously show a single document on several desktops, mark it up virtually, and record the markups for later. For a couple of semesters now I have worked with other faculty on documents using the collaboration and review features of the various MSOffice apps. Though I am still not good at it, I've also never been trained or even sat down to try to figure out how to use them myself. Even with the lousy understanding I have, I still manage to do good work with these people. Plus any inconvenience I have in doing the actual markup is worth the benefit of webposting and email over fax and mail - and spellcheck over, well, nothing.

So this point would seem to be more about training and software than about something special about paper.

Can I say that the costs of the added equipment, software, & training would be cheaper than what people spend on paper, ink, & toner now? No. I really don't know. So I will say that it is possible that in the end paper might still be cheaper. Do I know that the disposal of all that tech gear as it obsoletes would have less environmental impact than paper? No. The power consumption and disposal of electronics might mean that paper is ultimately better for the environment. But as far as any hardcopy affordances to collaboration, mark up, and organization, I would argue than any advantage people might see are vestigial, or because they are not properly equipped, or equipped to change their ways.