Prioritisation: should similar tasks be grouped together?
In precision work, the processing sequence can matter as much as the contents of the schedule. The management question is specific: when does grouping similar operations reduce processing time without making other jobs wait excessively?
What the literature establishes
Joshua S. Rubinstein, David E. Meyer and Jeffrey E. Evans (2001, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance) show, in controlled experiments, that switching from one task to another incurs a time cost, particularly when the rules are more complex. Their findings support a distinction between shifting goals and activating the rules needed for the new task. They provide a reason to examine the sequence of operations, but do not directly demonstrate that batching improves workshop performance.
Anticipating the transition is not always enough
Robert D. Rogers and Stephen Monsell (1995, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General) observe a switching cost even when alternation between simple tasks is predictable. Additional preparation time reduces this cost without eliminating it entirely in their experiments. Announcing a sequence in advance therefore does not necessarily make transitions cost-free.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that all similar tasks should always be processed together. However, this rule confuses the time saved by the person doing the work with the delay experienced by jobs waiting for their batch. Grouping is an organisational hypothesis to test, not a priority that overrides delivery commitments or quality requirements. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot size
These experiments concern controlled cognitive tasks, not sequences of watchmaking inspections or microelectronics equipment. They provide neither an optimal batch size nor an estimate of the time saved when changing a fixture, programme or job file. In practice, these times must be distinguished: physical reconfiguration and cognitive transition are not the same measure.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
As part of SHR's time management and prioritisation programme, a Neuchâtel team working in microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics could compare its usual sequence with limited grouping of compatible operations, without changing the required checks. For each job, it would record when it becomes available, when processing starts and finishes, preparation minutes and any rework. With workload and complexity documented, the comparison would examine preparation minutes per job and the median elapsed time from availability to completion. Grouping would be retained only if preparation savings did not come at the expense of agreed turnaround times or quality. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Neuchâtel
- time management & prioritisation
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel