Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Productivity vs Monitor size vs CVS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MRichterFlournoy - 26 May 2004 19:22 GMT
We have an interesting situation at a large company in the southeast.

We have been tasked to find some productivity-related reasons to use
larger monitors.  Most of our monitors are 17" HP versions that are at
least a few years old.

In curriculum development, we work mostly with authoring software such
as Adobe Framemaker, which requires more than one
document/window/catalog/etc. to be viewed simultaneously.  Often there
are SEVERAL of these things that need to be viewed at once, severely
overloading a 17" monitor's viewing area.  We spend most of each work
day glued to the monitors.

I gradually became aware of Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) personally
after noticing this job was decreasing my distant acuity.  Normally I
have slight myopia (20/25) that was good enough for me to get an FAA
Class II medical certificate every year and not require corrective
lenses. After a year in this job, staring at the crowded 17" monitor,
I am approx 20/40 and for the first time in my 57 years, I may have to
wear glasses to fly legally.

I also experience other symptoms of CVS in varying degrees: neck
soreness, blurred vision, fatigue.  (Also, I have been told I get
cranky when I sit too long at the computer.)

While reducing the effects CVS is obviously important, the
bean-stackers are loathe to release any funding unless they can see
some productivity improvement or cost savings.  So, what I am after is
some way to show that new 22" monitors will be worth the $500 or so
each of them will cost.  The types of statements I need might sound
like these:
    - The reduction in CVS typically will reduce fatigue to the extent
that productivity will improve 10%.
    - Healthcare costs vary inversely with monitor size.
    - CVS with its associated discomfort and annoyance, reduces morale to
the point that increasing monitor size may have a direct effect on
morale-related productivity; possibly a 1:1 ROI.
    - Other large organizations have shown significant cost
savings/productivity improvements with larger monitors.

Thanks for any information.
Mark A - 26 May 2004 19:35 GMT
> We have an interesting situation at a large company in the southeast.
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> Thanks for any information.

The sharpness of the monitor is just as important (if not more so) than the
size. Also the video card (and the refresh rate used) has a significant
impact on CVS.

Many newer video cards will support multiple monitors so you can put each
document on a separate screen.
MRichterFlournoy - 26 May 2004 23:18 GMT
I know sharpness and video cards matter.  Some sections here use dual
monitors, also, with special video cards.  An additional monitor AND
video card will cost about the same as a replacement 22" monitor.

What I am after is some sort of relationship between productivity and
monitor size, assuming a given sharpness.

The eye docs have told me the further away from the monitor the eye
is, the less the myopia-inducing strain on the lense.  If I get more
than two feet from a 17" screen loaded up with Framemaker stuff, I
can't read it anymore.  Two feet is still too close for a small enough
myopia-inducing strain.

I need much larger font sizes, which is not a possibility now.  Larger
fonts need larger screens for a given amount of material presented.
Larger fonts will let me get 3' away from the screen, maybe.

There is a reduction in productivity when CVS sets in.  The morale
factor alone is significant, knowing I am ruining my eyes permanently.

There has got to be some study somewhere that shows a relationship
between productivity and monitor size.  Maybe the relationship might
not be quite so direct,... it might be nothing more than a
relationship between productivity and CVS.

Anyway, anyone out there with some ideas, please let me know.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote >
> The sharpness of the monitor is just as important (if not more so) than the
> size. Also the video card (and the refresh rate used) has a significant
> impact on CVS.>
> Many newer video cards will support multiple monitors so you can put each
> document on a separate screen.
Mark A - 26 May 2004 23:27 GMT
> I know sharpness and video cards matter.  Some sections here use dual
> monitors, also, with special video cards.  An additional monitor AND
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Anyway, anyone out there with some ideas, please let me know.

All productivity "studies" are bogus. It's not science, it's common sense.
Dan Abel - 27 May 2004 00:21 GMT
> All productivity "studies" are bogus. It's not science, it's common sense.

I have my favorite productivity study that I studied in a management class
that I took many years back.  It's not completely off topic, since it
attempted to measure productivity changes due to changing light levels.
It was a plant that assembled telepone equipment, so it was easy to
measure how many got assembled during a given time period.  The study
found that productivity increased, when light levels were increased,
decreased or left the same!  They attempted to figure out why, and found
that the job was so mind-numbingly boring that the fact that somebody was
paying some attention to the workers made them feel better enough about
their jobs that they became more productive.

I think the problem with any productivity study done concerning  larger
monitors, is that such work is almost impossible to measure.  In fact, I
would guess that for some jobs where it was possible to measure
productivity changes, a small monitor that showed just what the worker
needed to see would be more productive than a large monitor which
interfered with the space available for other equipment.

Signature

Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

Lew - 27 May 2004 15:58 GMT
"Mark A" wrote: "All productivity "studies" are bogus. It's not
science, it's common sense."

Of course it is common sense.  So what!?  You aren't getting the Dr's
point.

I can directly relate to his problem.  Where I work common sense
doesn't mean diddly when it comes to costs and funding.  All that
matters is that the purse-string-pullers see some sort of cost
advantage.  It is part of their religion -- they must see a savings or
less time spent or increased revenue.  If they don't see a near term
quantifiable improvement, they won't spend any money.

I don't have any productivity numbers.  Sorry.  There is, however, a
growing understanding of CVS and how it affects the bottom line.
Maybe the accountants might get motivated if they saw huge healthcare
expenses associated with UV, posture, and vision problems from working
with lousy monitors.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.