Talk:Productivity paradox

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Merge with Solow computer paradox

The lead from Solow computer paradox says it all: The Solow computer paradox, also know as the productivity paradox. These articles are both short, and both about the same topic. - Rainwarrior 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier usage

This page should reference the 1986 article "The Productivity Paradox" by Wickham Skinner which appeared in Management Review Vol 75 Issue 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.108.190 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just about computers and communications

There have been some new books and papers about the productivity slowdown and diminishing returns on technology, along with some on-line discussion blogs by economic historians and others who have written on the subject:

The Debate Zone: Has the US passed peak productivity growth?

In view of the current controversy I think we now have enough information to do a revision. Hopefully I will have time to contribute.Phmoreno (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some background

My guess is that most people who read this have no idea of what information technology is about in detail. What is needed is an explanation of how IT systems work. This should include how database management systems organize information in relational databases and how queries are made with SQL. Also how web pages are developed and how they are accessed from servers. Also need to know about software design and the role of an IT analyst in gathering and documenting requirements and how this gets turned into code, tested and put into use. One reason there is a productivity paradox is that most people in the workplace, including management but excluding the IT department, have no clue how this stuff works.Phmoreno (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

The explanations section has a list of four explanations, then three explanations, then nine. Other hypotheses are sprinkled throughout the text. Then "miscellaneous causes" has more. Mostly uncited and possible original research. Could use a reorg to the article. I'm open to other ideas, but maybe we could have three or four main sections to this article: 1. Measurement - how was this phenomenon observed, and mismeasurement as a possible explanation, 2. Possible reasons for low benefits from information systems, 3. Losses from information systems that offset gains, and maybe 4. Timing - why IS haven't contributed value yet. (Maybe you want a section explaining why everyone expects high value from IS before 2, to set up the article, maybe not necessary.) Key sources should include Carr in 2003, Brynjolfsson in 1993, and David Bray's lit review on SSRN. I'll take a stab at this later, weigh in with other ideas or if you have a better plan. --Thomas B♘talk 13:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Productivity paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical chart

It is requested that a mathematical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

A graph or graphs showing productivity over time would be very revealing. -- Beland (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some, but I don't see the effect clearly. Can somebody check the assumptions behind each graph and see if they display the effect?