You may notice some images loading slow across the Open Collections website. Thank you for your patience as we rebuild the cache to make images load faster.

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Is your time well spent? : reflecting on knowledge work more holistically Guillou, Hayley 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2020_may_guillou_hayley.pdf [ 1.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0389624.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0389624-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0389624-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0389624-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0389624-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0389624-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0389624-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0389624-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0389624.ris

Full Text

Is Your Time Well Spent? Reflecting on Knowledge WorkMore HolisticallybyHayley GuillouB.Sc., University of Manitoba, 2017A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMaster of ScienceinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORALSTUDIES(Computer Science)The University of British Columbia(Vancouver)March 2020c© Hayley Guillou, 2020The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Fac-ulty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled:Is Your Time Well Spent? Reflecting on Knowledge Work More Holis-ticallysubmitted by Hayley Guillou in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the de-gree of Master of Science in Computer Science.Examining Committee:Joanna McGrenere, Computer ScienceCo-supervisorThomas Fritz, Computer ScienceCo-supervisorGail Murphy, Computer ScienceSupervisory Committee MemberiiAbstractThe modern workplace is more demanding than ever before. Yet, since the in-dustrial age, productivity measures have predominantly stayed narrowly focusedon the output of the work, and not accounted for the big shift in the cognitive de-mands placed on the workers or the interleaving of work and life that is so commontoday. We posit that a more holistic conceptualization of Time Well Spent (TWS)at work could mitigate this issue. In our 1-week study, 40 knowledge workers usedthe experience sampling method (ESM) to rate their TWS and then define TWSat the end of the week. We found this rating was heavily dependent on physicaland emotional state for some. Thus we ran a 4-week study (n=22) with an inter-vention inspired by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and we found that, relative tothe control group, our ESM-based intervention shaped participants’ personal con-cept of TWS, especially by giving some participants awareness of the impact oftheir feelings during and towards work. Our work contributes a preliminary char-acterization of TWS, empirical evidence that this term can capture a more holisticnotion of work that also includes the worker’s feelings and well-being, and designimplications for future tracking tools that support knowledge workers.iiiLay SummaryIn today’s workplace, performance is often measured using the notion of produc-tivity. However, many occupations now involve solving complex problems, andoutput-based productivity alone is a poor measurement for work success. In thisthesis, we explore using a new term, Time Well Spent, in order to capture bothtime management and well-being during the workday. In our initial 1-week study,40 participants used online hourly surveys to rate their TWS. We found this rat-ing was heavily dependent on physical and emotional state for some. Thus we rana 4-week study with an intervention inspired by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy,self-reflection using a mobile application that prompted users to log their feelingsand activities hourly. Compared to the control group, our intervention gave someparticipants awareness of the impact of their feelings during and towards work.This work is a preliminary effort to create holistic time management software forknowledge workers.ivPrefaceThe experiments described in this thesis were conducted with the approval of theUniversity of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (certificatenumber H18-01774).Parts of this thesis appear in a conference paper manuscript, where I am thefirst author 1. I was the lead investigator for the studies, responsible for all majorareas of concept formation, data collection and analysis, as well as manuscriptcomposition and participant recruitment. Graduate student Kevin Chow helpedin deploying, conducting, and analyzing the second study, as well as manuscriptcomposition. Joanna McGrenere and Thomas Fritz were the supervisory authorson this project and were involved throughout the project from concept formationto manuscript composition.1H. Guillou, K. Chow, T. Fritz, J. McGrenere. Is Your Time Well Spent? Reflecting on Knowl-edge Work More Holistically. To appear in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, New York, NY, USA, 2020. ACM.vTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiLay Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiDedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Productivity and Self-Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Stress and Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Interactive Technologies for Health and Well-Being . . . . . . . . 62.4 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Study 1: Capturing Holistic Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.1.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9vi3.1.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1.3 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2.1 Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.2.2 Characterizing TWS During Primary Working Hours . . . 133.2.3 Hourly Reflections on TWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2.4 Impact of the Experience Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Study 2: Intervening on Time Well Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.1 TWS Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.1.1 A CBT-Inspired Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.1.2 Mobile Self-Logging Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.1.3 Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.1.4 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.2.3 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.3.1 Changes in Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3.2 Broadening Personal TWS Definition . . . . . . . . . . . 334.3.3 Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.3.4 Opinions of the Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 Threats to Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.1 Construct Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2 Internal Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.3 External Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42viiA Study 1 Supporting Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50A.1 Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50A.2 Hourly Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53A.3 End of Day Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55A.4 TWS Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57A.5 TWS Definition Codebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66B Study 2 Supporting Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.1 Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.2 Initial Survey for Intervention Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71B.3 Initial Survey for Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76B.4 Mid Survey for Intervention Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81B.5 Mid Survey for Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92B.6 Final Survey for Intervention Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99B.7 Final Survey for Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111viiiList of TablesTable 4.1 Categorization of changes in awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Table 4.2 Summary of test results from aligned rank transformation ANOVA 29ixList of FiguresFigure 3.1 A timeline of our procedure for Study 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 3.2 Five of the nine faces used in the Likert scale . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 3.3 Visualization of the distribution of subthemes in each partici-pant’s TWS definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 4.1 TWS tracker on the OmniTrack app . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 4.2 Web-based visualization for daily and weekly reflection . . . 24Figure 4.3 A timeline of the procedure of Study 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 4.4 Mean awareness of emotion ratings for both the control andintervention group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 4.5 Mean satisfaction ratings for each survey level, averaged acrossboth the control and intervention groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 35xAcknowledgmentsThis research was funded by grants from both the Natural Science and EngineeringResearch Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant and ABB.I’d like to thank Joanna McGrenere and Thomas Fritz for their guidance andsupport throughout this project. It has been quite the ride, especially the wholeCHI submission process, but I couldn’t have asked for more supportive and caringsupervisors.There’s no doubt in my mind that our paper and this thesis would not be com-pleted without the amazing work and support of Kevin Chow. I can’t imagine abetter partner on this project. Thanks for pushing ahead with the work when Icould not and thanks for giving me the motivation to keep going.Thanks to my Vancouver families for being there for me: Tammy and JeffMcGiffin, John and Victoria Radosevic, and my VUL friends. Thanks also tomy computer science friends for the many fun nights and travels: Anna Scholtz,Michael Oppermann, Neil Newman, Puneet Mehotra, Alistair Wick, SiddheshKhandelwal, and many more.Most of all, thank you to my family and to my partner. Many thanks to myparents, Heather and Greg, and my brothers, Trevor and Tim, for supporting mydecision to move across the country during a very difficult time for our family.Your visits throughout the past two and a half years have given me so much to lookforward to during dark times. Finally, I’d like to thank my partner, Leo Chang, forhis help in this and all the things to come.xiDedicationTo NikxiiChapter 1IntroductionIn this age of information, knowledge workers have higher demands than ever be-fore. Industrial workers often had clearly defined and somewhat repetitive tasksthat were performed in a defined workday while largely disconnected from theoutside world. In contrast, today’s workers, most notably knowledge workers, of-ten have flexible hours and autonomy to perform a broad variety of cognitivelydemanding tasks. The always-connected nature of technology has fuelled both aninterleaving of work and life and an increase in interruptions and distractions atwork. These changes to work and the digitization of it have been accompanied byan increase in mental health problems [4, 61], so much so that the World HealthOrganization is raising concerns over workers’ mental health. Yet, despite theseradical changes, knowledge workers are often still assessed using classic produc-tivity measures that narrowly focus on the output of their work [50], such as thenumber of tasks completed, that do not take into account the overall well-being ofthe worker.There is a breadth of research that investigates worker productivity in the dig-ital age, but it predominantly focuses separately on either productivity or specificaspects of well-being [12, 31, 49]. For instance, the factors that influence em-ployee productivity have been examined in organizational productivity research(see [23] for a review). More recently in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) re-search, knowledge workers’ assessment of perceived productivity has been char-acterized [31]. There are studies that capture emotions during work [35, 37, 40],1but none are focused on having individuals themselves explore the effect of emo-tions on their work and well-being, and vice versa. Other research has devisedand examined approaches to foster productivity. For example, by reducing digitaldistractions, to lower stress through interventions, or by providing technology forself-monitoring for productivity (e.g. [29]) or emotions at work (e.g. [44]). Onesuch study showed specifically that technology interventions to reduce distractionsin fact significantly increased some workers’ stress [42].What is missing from the literature, as well as technology interventions in themarketplace (e.g. RescueTime [53]), is a more holistic approach, one that com-bines classic productivity with well-being, to capture more fully how knowledgeworkers are doing. We posit that such a holistic approach could be incorporatedinto the design of digital tools that more effectively support workers. This is ourlong-term research objective.The goal of the work in this thesis is to investigate whether we can foster moreholistic thinking about a knowledge worker’s time at work. By focusing on the no-tion of “Time Well Spent” (TWS) at work—a term that has also recently appearedin popular media [22]—we hope to capture actions that are both productivity-related and those that are targeted at well-being, as well as workers’ perceptionsand emotions.As an initial step to examine whether the concept of TWS can foster a moreholistic thinking about knowledge work, we performed two studies. First, we con-ducted a one-week study using the experience sampling method (ESM) to inves-tigate whether using the term TWS helps to capture a more holistic notion duringprimary working hours. We recruited 40 participants and collected their personaldefinitions of the term TWS and experience samples where they rated the degree towhich their time was well spent. Our findings show that people characterize TWSin terms of what they work on, how they work, how they feel, and how they takecare of themselves. Importantly, we show that the term Time Well Spent evokes astrong theme of Self Care. Additionally, some participants who reflected on bothactivities and emotions changed their perception of their work.In a second step, we designed and ran a four-week study with 22 partici-pants, using our experience sampling influenced by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy(CBT), to examine whether reflecting on TWS could shift a worker’s awareness—a2crucial step in behaviour change [51]—towards a more holistic view of their work.Our findings show that, relative to the control group, our ESM-based interventionshaped participants’ personal concept of TWS, especially by giving some partici-pants awareness of the interaction of their feelings and work.This thesis contributes a preliminary characterization of TWS and empiricalevidence that this term can capture a holistic notion of work. We show that whenknowledge workers reflect on TWS during working hours the importance of selfcare and how one feels is emphasized. Furthermore, we contribute an empirical un-derstanding of the impact of our CBT-inspired ESM intervention and offer concreteideas for future work with an ESM intervention that will more explicitly capturethe emotional component of work using TWS.3Chapter 2Related WorkWe begin by discussing productivity as the current performance metric for workand review the limitations of current self-monitoring technologies that promoteproductive work. We then discuss stress in the workplace, how health behavioursare being tracked, and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy2.1 Productivity and Self-TrackingProductivity is the primary work performance measure today, but this term is be-coming harder to define as a majority of the workforce has gone from labourerswith relatively straight-forward inputs and tangible outputs to creative knowledgeworkers with domain specific and hard-to-quantify outputs. Research has identi-fied a variety of factors that influence productivity for knowledge workers. Thesefactors include organizational ones, such as team dynamics [10], feedback [17],autonomy [17, 56], and office environments [12, 24]. At the same time, there arevarious personal factors that influence workers’ productivity, such as intrinsic mo-tivation [21], psychological well-being [12, 57, 62], and work engagement [7, 63].The HCI community has been targeting several of these productivity factors intoday’s technology-rich work environments. For instance, researchers extensivelystudied the nature of distractions/interruptions and devised approaches to lowertheir burden on productivity [9, 15, 16, 27, 36, 41, 42]. However, a concern withsome productivity enhancing methods is that they can cause an increase in stress,4for example, by negatively framing productivity [29] or by blocking distractionsfor individuals who were already focused at work [42].There is also a growing body of HCI research that focuses on quantifying as-pects of work and promoting more productive work behaviors by the use of self-monitoring techniques. Most of the existing self-monitoring software tools useautomated tracking to determine productivity and focus on the time spent in com-puter applications [29, 53, 59]. While this reduces the burden of data collectionfor the user, only capturing the activity (such as website or application in use) andduration may fail to recognize the context of the activity and even if the activitywas related to work, it cannot accurately judge whether this time was spent effi-ciently. Also, automated tracking can only detect activities on the system wherethe software is installed, so real-life activities, such as face-to-face conversationsor impromptu meetings, are not captured. Researchers have therefore suggesteddesign recommendations for self-monitoring in the workplace that include experi-ence sampling to provide richer insights on productivity [47].Recently there has been a slight shift to examining productivity more holisti-cally. Meyer et al. has classified what makes a day “good” or “typical” for softwaredevelopers in terms of productivity, but this was based on one end-of-day survey[45]. This work expanded on previous work by Meyer et al. that comprised asurvey as well as four-hour observations and interviews with professional softwaredevelopers to better understand their perceptions of productivity [46]. Further, arecent classification of personal productivity for knowledge workers shows earlyevidence that emotional or physical state can influence perceived productivity [31].Instead of strictly aiming to measure and increase productivity, we posit thatTWS is a step towards an alternative, holistic evaluation that could eventually be-come a standardized measure of performance for knowledge workers. In orderfor participants to deeply reflect on their personal concept of Time Well Spent,they need to reflect on all the activities they do during a day and have a sense ofwhether or not they spent that time well. Further, since it’s not currently possibleto have an automatic summary of activities and reflections, we set out to collectself-reported experience samples.52.2 Stress and EmotionsStress is a part of life for many adults, especially in the workplace and for today’sstudents. A 2019 survey by the American Psychological Association found that64% of adults identify work as a major source of stress [6]. North American sur-veys in 2019 found that 60.9% of undergraduate students and 64.5% of graduatestudents described their overall level of stress ‘more than average’ or ‘tremendous’during the last year [2, 3]. In our second study, we limited participants to graduatestudents to homogenize the type of work and to capture this higher level of stressacross participants. In the HCI community, stress has been addressed in many as-pects of knowledge work, such as multitasking [37], email [40], and distractions[42]. More generally, emotions directly influence how we perform everyday tasks,interact with others, learn, work, and make important decisions [34]. Negativeemotions are known to affect our physical and mental well-being, and a higherpositive affect balance has been correlated with higher productivity [38]. Sinceworker mental well-being influences performance and productivity, there is an ef-fort to combat mental health concerns.2.3 Interactive Technologies for Health and Well-BeingBeyond tracking work behaviours, self-monitoring technologies are used for a va-riety of health behaviours including tracking physical activity [13, 14, 19, 33],emotional states [44], stress [39, 40], sleep [28], and diet [20]. The goal of thesetechnologies is to increase self-awareness which, according to the Transtheoreti-cal Model, may eventually lead to behaviour change [51]. Our long-term goal isto extend these tracking tools and incorporate a more holistic thinking about timeat work in order to build awareness and hopefully lead to behaviours that balanceproductivity and well-being.The Transtheoretical Model [51] is a well-established theory of the process ofbehaviour change and describes behavior change as a sequence of stages whichare run through until a behaviour change happens and can be maintained. Self-awareness is a process that allows advancement between stages, especially frombeing unaware of the problem behavior (precontemplation stage) to acknowledgingit is a problem and intending to improve it (contemplation stage). Self-monitoring6tools have been shown to assist users through these stages (e.g. [33]) revealingunderlying causes of problematic behaviour, encouraging the behaviour to changeto a more positive one, and helping maintain and monitor the behavior change.2.4 Cognitive Behavioural TherapyCognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is based on the simple concept that in everysituation one experiences, their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are interactingand influencing each other. The goal of CBT is to develop skills used to managedifficult situations, feelings of distress, and problematic thoughts and behaviours[54]. For example, imagine someone sees a dog. If they are afraid of dogs, thentheir thought might be “That dog will bite me!”, then they might feel afraid andrun away. If they like dogs, then their thought might be “What a nice dog!” andthey might feel happy and pet the dog. Notice in these two examples that thesituation is the same, but a difference in thoughts resulted in different feelings andactions [5]. Since thoughts, feelings, and behaviours influence each other, changingone of these can lead to changes in the other two. CBT uses a method that workson changing undesirable outcomes into desirable ones in this way, especially byhaving individuals record their experiences in order to keep a trustworthy recordfor recognizing their patterns and progress. In our work, we explore reflection onemotion as a part of regular time management instead of a therapeutic treatment.Online CBT, standardized CBT treatment that the participant works throughindependently on the internet, has been used for treating depression and anxiety[18, 32, 52] and these interventions have shown promising results by promot-ing engagement through conversational agents and relatable examples. For disor-dered eating, real-time self-monitoring helps patients be more aware of momentarythoughts and feelings so that they can begin to change behaviours that seemed be-yond their control [48]. We found these self-monitoring approaches to be similarto current productivity tracking strategies, but with an emotional aspect included.In our work we create a CBT-inspired self monitoring technique using experiencesampling that combines the emotional reflection aspect of CBT with the behaviourtracking aspect of productivity tracking. As shown with other self-monitoringtools, awareness is a first step to behaviour change. Increasing awareness is our7goal for this work.8Chapter 3Study 1: Capturing HolisticThinkingThe main goal of our study was to examine whether the concept of TWS can cap-ture holistic thinking about knowledge work. Ultimately, we wanted participantsto answer the question ‘What is Time Well Spent?’. However, from piloting, thisconcept was too difficult for participants to come up with a thoughtful answer whenreflecting abstractly. To have participants deeply reflect on the concept and producea thoughtful personal definition of TWS, we performed a multi-day experiencesampling study instead of a single survey or interview.3.1 Method3.1.1 ParticipantsWe recruited 40 workers (21/19 M/F; ages 22-50, M = 28.2, SD = 5.71) throughword-of-mouth and an online public study posting board at a local university. Theyworked in 13 different positions: actuarial analyst (1), archaeologist (1), adminis-tration/assistants (7), engineers (3), financial analysts (2), grad students (10), man-agers (4), marketing strategists (1), researchers (3), salespeople (2), social worker(1), software developers (4), and writer (1). We limited the number of participantsfrom any one field to 10. The inclusion criteria was that they worked full-time9with at least 6 hours per working day, the majority of that time was spent usingtechnology, and the individual must have some autonomy on the tasks they chooseto perform throughout the day. Participants gave informed consent and were com-pensated with a $40 CAD gift card.3.1.2 ProcedureFigure 3.1: A timeline of our procedure for Study 1.Our main objective in the study procedure was to collect personal definitionsof the concept of TWS. Therefore, we asked participants in a TWS survey “Overthe past workweek, you have been reflecting on how you have been spending yourtime. How would you define ‘Time Well Spent’?” In designing the procedure forthis study, we found we had to add reflective in-situ activities for participants be-cause we wanted them to think about the concept of TWS and about whether theirtime was well spent or not over a period of time. While this reflection and in-situdata collection of activities during primary working hours took up a majority of thestudy, our main goal was for this to prompt participants to provide a thoughtful def-inition of the concept of TWS. To reinforce the holistic nature of this study, we didnot mention the term ‘productivity’ at any point. Whenever the term was mentionedby participants in the survey responses, it came from them without prompting.Overall, the study consisted of an initial survey, 5 days of hourly experiencesamples and daily end-of-day experience samples, the TWS survey, and a follow-up survey (see Figure 3.1 for a timeline of these steps). Supporting material forthis study can be found in Appendix A. In the initial survey, participants set upthe experience sampling parameters, which included the days of their work week,the time of day they should begin receiving notifications in order to complete atleast 4 experience sampling surveys each day, and whether they wanted to receive10Figure 3.2: Five (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) of the nine faces in the Likert scale, linedup with their position on the slider. In the survey, participants saw oneface and the shape of the mouth changed with the slider.reminders by text message or email.For the 5 days of hourly experience samples, participants were asked to com-plete an online experience sample survey every working hour. Each survey promptedthe respondent to “Please reflect on the time since your last survey, or since thebeginning of your workday. What personal and work activities did you engagein?”. We provided a list of examples to reinforce that we wanted them to reflecton all activities, including non-work activities such as breaks, face-to-face or on-line communication, interruptions, or any other personal activity. We then asked3 questions: (Q1) “How do you feel about how well you have spent your time?”This was rated on a 9-point Likert scale with a neutral face at 5, frowns below 5,and smiles above 5 (see Figure 3.2). We found that pilots responded better to thesefaces than numbers or ‘how well’ descriptions; (Q2) “Why do you feel this way?”Open response; (Q3) “How did you spend your time?” Open response.In addition, we asked participants to complete an end-of-day survey to ratetheir day as a whole and note whether it was a typical day or not and why. Theyalso received a text message or email at the end of the day, letting them know howmany days of tracking they had left to complete. The experience sampling finishedwhen the participant had completed 5 days of surveys (at least 4 completed surveysper day).In the TWS survey, at the end, we asked participants for their personal def-inition of the concept of TWS: Over the past workweek, you have been reflect-ing on how you have been spending your time. How would you define ‘time wellspent’?. Additionally, we asked about participants’ own characterization of theirworkplace environment and demographics. After two weeks, we sent optional in-11formal follow-up emails asking about the experience of the study and the impactof the reflection itself.3.1.3 Data Collection and AnalysisFor the experience samples, we sent participants a text message or email notifica-tion every hour. For sending the notification, we created a simple Python messag-ing server using Python’s smtplib module [55] and Twilio [58], a communicationAPI. To capture the samples we used Qualtrics surveys. For the initial and TWSsurvey we also used Qualtrics.The 40 participants each provided a final definition of TWS. To analyse andcode these 40 definitions, we performed a two-step process involving three re-searchers. First, to inform the final coding of the definitions, One researcher andI chose a random subset of 300 of the collected experience samples and indepen-dently coded them for explanations of the ratings following a thematic analysisapproach [11]. The codes were discussed and consolidated, and saturation wasreached. Second, another researcher and I then used the previously identified codesas a basis for coding the 40 TWS definitions. For this coding, we used thematicanalysis and independently coded a subset of the definitions (20 entries; 50%) anddiscussed them. This step served to refine the original set of codes, mostly theirdescriptions, and to generate 4 higher-level themes (the final themes are outlined inSection 3.2.2). Most TWS definitions were multi-coded as they touched on morethan one theme. The full set of 40 were coded by myself after the agreement wasreached.After coding the TWS definitions, I went back and coded all 1149 hourly sur-veys to validate the identified high-level themes of TWS and to assess whetherexperience sample explanations of TWS ratings were work and results-focused orfocused on the state and well-being of the participant.3.2 ResultsWe report the study results in three parts: descriptive statistics of the experiencesampling, characterization of personal definitions of TWS, and insights from thehourly self-reports.123.2.1 Descriptive StatisticsWe collected 1321 experience samples (1149 hourly surveys, 172 end-of-day sur-veys) from 40 participants (average of 33.0 per participant). The participants wererequired to complete 5 days with at least 4 surveys completed. On average, thestudy took 5.5 unique working days spanning an average 8.7 calendar days, perparticipant.The definitions of TWS collected in the TWS survey ranged in lengthfrom 3 to 90 words (M = 28.7, SD = 20.2).3.2.2 Characterizing TWS During Primary Working HoursFrom the 40 TWS definitions we identified 15 subthemes of TWS and groupedthese under 4 larger themes (our code book table can be found in Appendix A.5).Figure 3.3 shows that the distribution of these codes differed for each participant.We next discuss the themes and subthemes.What I work on. Since we asked about TWS during primary working hours, itis not surprising that 32/40 definitions had a results-focused dimension of work. Wefound that some participants valued progress, while others valued completion oftasks or a mix of both. Participants who listed progress as an important componentof TWS often talked about their progress in the context of a larger goal, e.g. “Iconsider time to be managed well when I have finished all the tasks I had on myto-do list by the end of the day. I create my to-do list based on larger projects, sothat means I’m closer to completing my long-term goals everyday.” (P34). Theyfelt their time was better spent on tasks that push them towards finishing a largerproject than menial day-to-day tasks or unrelated administrative work. Completionof tasks was usually in regards to tasks that could be completed in one day ratherthan a larger project. On a similar note, many participants also recognized that theyfollowed either a long-term or short-term plan and that their time is well spentwhen they work according to this plan. Participants also cared about the qualityof work they performed. They explicitly stated that their time is well spent whenthey are doing their best work and producing high quality results, e.g. “providingquality customer service” (P39).How I work. The subthemes of punctuality, efficiency, and mental focus de-scribe the person-focused working behaviour valued by 13 out of 40 participants.13Figure 3.3: Participants (n=40) each gave a definition of TWS, which is rep-resented by a line. It could be multi-faceted in terms of touching mul-tiple major themes (multiple circles across the line) and multiple sub-themes within a theme (size of the circle). The number at the bottomgives the total number of participants (out of 40) who touched on thecorresponding major theme.For punctuality, participants mentioned both external deadlines (“Meeting mydeadlines and staying on top of my paperwork.” (P25)) and self-imposed require-ments (“Getting tasks done in a timely manner” (P10)). Efficiency-focused partic-ipants were concerned about using time as efficiently as possible. This is different,but not mutually exclusive from valuing mental focus, staying focused on a taskfor long, uninterrupted periods of time and avoiding distractions. For example, P514defines TWS as “time spent focused and attentive to my work”.How I feel. 11/40 definitions captured some aspect of feelings, expressed inthe form of a sense of satisfaction or achievement, the feeling of doing somethingmeaningful or fun, or the avoidance of feeling guilt about how they spent theirtime. Those expressing satisfaction or achievement talked about satisfaction inthe work they produced or the way they worked. For example, P9 defined TWSas time “when I felt satisfied that I used my abilities adequately”. Recognizingmeaningful and fun meant valuing the importance or enjoyment of the work it-self. For example, P1 felt time was well spent when the tasks were worth theirattention, e.g. “I would define it as time spent on things/tasks that I feel are worthmy attention.”, and P21 listed “having fun” as one component of their definition.How I take care of myself. 17/40 definitions mentioned activities that are notspecifically work related. These fell into 4 major categories: physical health, men-tal and emotional health, social bonds, and breaks from work. During primaryworking hours, many participants felt it was important to pay attention to theirphysical health by doing things like eating, moving, or napping, e.g. “Accom-plishing many tasks, bonding with co-workers, or getting mid-day breaks to moveand walk” (P6). Some participants prioritized their mental and emotional healthand noted that taking time to care of this aspect of their health was important andwell spent. Maintaining relationships and social bonds was also important formany participants, in their personal life but many also explicitly valued nurturingsocial bonds with colleagues. For example, P19 explains “time spent socializingis also enriching, as long as it doesn’t take up too large a portion of a workday.”Breaks from work were valued, but often had caveats, such as being necessary,well-placed, or short.3.2.3 Hourly Reflections on TWSWhile the main focus of this study was to collect personal definitions of the con-cept of TWS, we also analyzed the 1149 hourly experience sample answers to thequestion Why do you feel this way? to determine whether participants explain theirrating using work and results-focused language (What I work on and How I work)or using well-being and emotionally-driven language (How I feel and How I take15care of myself ).Similar to the TWS survey responses, the majority of the hourly experiencesamples (955 of 1149) focused on the work output and how the participant worked.These samples further supported our identified themes and subthemes and capturedall dimensions of ‘What I work on’, e.g. “Accomplished tasks that needed to getdone. Tasks were not demanding.” (P2), “Got my code working.” (P7), all the wayto the ones of the ‘How I work’ theme, for instance with a participant stating “I wasworking throughout the whole hour with almost no distractions on an importanttask I know I had to get done, and got the code to work.” (P32).Also in line with the TWS analysis, there were a notable number of samples(265/1149) that also captured the ‘How I feel’ and ‘How I take care of myself’theme. Some examples of emotionally-driven answers include “I am really proudof myself for staying on task” (P31), “I was angry because I did a job from anotherdepartment” (P23), and “felt good to be needed and to have valuable input” (P4),while explanations using physical state included “I felt tired and exhausted at theend of the day!” (P17), “not physically feeling as great today” (P38), and “Feltenergized even though it was Monday morning” (P30). It is not surprising thatmost explanations for rating TWS were based on results-focused work since wewere polling during the work day; many of the entries that mentioned emotionalor physical state also mentioned work. Importantly, there is notable variation inthe total number of emotional or physical state-based explanations between partic-ipants. The total number of these entries per participant ranged from 0 to 18 (M= 6.63, SD = 5.07) and the total percentage of these entries per participant rangedfrom 0% to 85% (M = 18.92%, SD = 24.08%). This suggests substantive indi-vidual differences among participants in terms of the emphasis on emotional andphysical state as a component of TWS.3.2.4 Impact of the Experience SamplingBased on informal conversations with participants directly afterwards, we weregiven the impression that some participants were affected by the act of recordingthe hourly reflections. Thus, two weeks after the study finished we sent optionalfeedback emails asking “In what way, if at all, was reflecting on Time Well Spent16helpful or unhelpful?” We received 15 responses and found that 3 participants whohad already been satisfied with the way they spent their time during primary work-ing hours did not find the act of self-reflection every hour in this study to be helpful,rather they found it to be “tedious” (P3) and “interruptive” (P1). Meanwhile, therewere 7/15 participants who reported changing their feelings towards work becauseof the reflection and 6/7 of these participants gave at least 25% emotion-based ex-planations for their TWS ratings. For example, one participant felt guilty he wastaking too much time during the workday to talk with his long-distance partner(necessitated by the time difference), but during the study he realized this socialand emotional connection was important for his ability to work and that he wasworking enough atypical hours to not feel guilty anymore. Another participantnoted “after my week long survey with this study, I was cheery to realize that Ifeel ‘mildly happy’ during most of my work hours and I wasn’t as depressed as Ithought I was.” (P39). 5/15 participants were neutral towards the study. They didnot find it annoying, but they only gained small insights and would not use the toolin the future.3.3 DiscussionWe have made progress at capturing a more holistic concept of work. We foundthat by using the term Time Well Spent, knowledge workers think more holisti-cally about their work, combining traditional productivity-related concepts withwell-being. In recent and the most closely related work, Kim et al. have alreadyshown that ‘productivity’ is a multifaceted concept and provide early evidence thatemotional or physical state can influence perceived productivity [31]. With ‘TimeWell Spent’ we introduce a different concept that encompasses productivity di-mensions, yet captures a more personal assessment of how one spends one’s timeagainst one’s values, and is not limited to any defined set of activities. More specif-ically, our thematic classification showed that TWS: (1) introduces a strong themeof Self Care (acknowledged by 17/40 participants); and (2) relative to [31], signif-icantly emphasizes the theme of Emotions and feelings (in 11/40 definitions). Ourfrequency counts illustrate the pervasiveness of these well-being-related aspects.Especially in today’s knowledge work environments in which mental health con-17cerns come more into the fore, the more holistic concept of TWS can provide manybenefits, for example, for assessing one’s work.To examine TWS at work and gather thoughtful and well-reflected definitionsof it, we used a method that differed from other studies, such as the one by [31], inkey ways. To have participants deeply reflect on their work and the TWS concept,we first had participants self-reflect on it for a 5 day period, asking them to logall activities during primary working hours, asked for a TWS (Likert) rating of itand an explanation of their rating. Only after the 5 day reflection period, we askedparticipants for their personal definitions of TWS. In comparison, Kim et al. [31]focused on productivity in work and life by having participants log “productiveactivities” during all hours and asking how productive the activity was and for anexplanation, rather than thinking more holistically about work and TWS duringworking hours. Our piloting demonstrated how valuable this additional period andholistic self-reporting was for participants to come up with a thoughtful answerwhen reflecting abstractly.We posit that the use of reflection on TWS can provide benefits to knowledgeworkers that go beyond an awareness change of productivity at work and gener-ally lead to a healthier and more emotionally-aware workforce. Self-monitoringand reflection have already been shown to provide benefits for certain areas, espe-cially in the health domain (e.g., [13]), and also for productivity (e.g., [31]). In ourstudy, we saw preliminary evidence that some participants who reflected on TWShad changes in their awareness and perception of their work, such as feeling lessguilty and happier, a first step in behaviour change [51]. However, frequent self-reports and explicit reflection on emotions can also be seen as tedious and havenegative effects for some individuals. Consistent awareness of negative emotionsmay highlight these and make the individual feel worse. As seen in [42], individ-uals who already have high self-control may feel more stressed by reflecting onactivities throughout the day. In our follow-up, we found that participants whoalready felt satisfied with the way their time is spent at work were concerned thata tracking tool would make them feel worse about work. On the other hand, forparticipants that started the study off dissatisfied with the way they spent their time,the self-reflection appeared to be more helpful. In future work when designing anintervention, it will be important to take into account the satisfaction of participants18with their work and pay attention to negative feelings.Our preliminary evidence of reflection on actions and feelings causing a changein thoughts has led us to consider Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) meth-ods. CBT is based on the concept that while experiencing every situation, one’sthoughts, feelings, and behaviours are interacting and influencing each other. ACBT-like method with explicit reflection on TWS that encompasses emotions andpossible dissatisfactions or other feelings in addition to behaviours/activities maybe the missing link for changing the way people think about how they spend theirprimary working hours.19Chapter 4Study 2: Intervening on TimeWell SpentStudy 1 showed us that using the concept of TWS allows knowledge workers tofoster more holistic thinking of their workday. In Study 2, we explore how reflect-ing on TWS develops one’s personal concept of it and the effect of this reflectionon awareness of activities and feelings. We know from Cognitive Behavioral Ther-apy (CBT), a popular well-validated method for treating a variety of mental-healthproblems [26], that feelings, thoughts, and actions are strongly intertwined. Thuswe sought to leverage part of the CBT method in our work.In Study 2, we had 11 participants use a CBT-inspired intervention, an ESM-based Android app, for 2 weeks to log their TWS rating, recent activities, and emo-tions hourly throughout their work day. In contrast to Study 1, participants wereobligated to specifically reflect on their emotions instead of providing a generalfreeform reflection. We investigated the effect of this intervention by conductingsurveys before, immediately after, and 2 weeks later asking for personal definitionsof TWS and ratings of emotional awareness, activity awareness, and satisfaction.As a control group, we had 11 control participants only fill out these surveys with-out using the application.204.1 TWS InterventionInspired by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approaches, we developed anESM-based intervention that served as both a data collection mechanism and atechnology probe that allowed us to investigate the impact and utility of reflectingon Time Well Spent. The intervention was conducted with a mobile self-loggingtool to manually track activities and feelings and a web app for visualizing and fur-ther self-reflection on users’ logged data. By conducting surveys before and afterthe intervention phase, we explore the impact of self-logging and self-reflection onan individual’s personal concept of TWS.4.1.1 A CBT-Inspired ApproachGiven the focus on emotion-driven explanations of TWS by some participants inStudy 1, we were inspired to leverage the process of CBT for the design of ourfollowup study (see Related Work for an overview of CBT). The basic approachis to have the user self-report and reflect on their feelings, thoughts and behaviorthrough a combination of mobile self-logging (ESM) and a web-based visualiza-tion that aggregates the data over longer periods of time. We required users to logand rate how well they spent their time (TWS), what they were currently doing(the behaviour aspect of CBT), and how they felt at the moment (the feeling aspectof CBT). This approach is akin to the diaries or mood logs that CBT clients keepand that help to explore the interactions between feelings, thoughts and behavior.The idea thereby is that if the client is generally dissatisfied with their feelings to-wards how they spend their time, then they have to change either their thoughts ortheir behaviors. They can find out which one should change by recording experi-ences. This is important for recognizing patterns and progress because memory isnot trustworthy and can be distorted over time.In contrast to the free-form reflection we asked for in Study 1, we explicitlyask the participant to reflect on their feelings each hour using a list of emotionaland physical states in this study. The context for our study, the primary workinghours of the participant, is continuous. For contexts with more ‘continuous’ ac-tivities, like the day-to-day activities while living with depression, low-intensityCBT commonly has clients record their moods at regular intervals throughout the21day (rather than just at triggers) to reinforce positive emotions instead of only high-lighting negative ones [8, 43]. The context for our study, the primary working hoursof the participant, is similarly continuous so we opted to use the ESM style of datacollection as an approximation of the CBT method. This is in contrast to usingCBT to reflect on triggering events at ‘discrete’ points throughout the day, whichis more commonly used with behaviours such as test-taking anxiety or disorderedeating.4.1.2 Mobile Self-Logging ToolThe mobile self-logging toolkit was built from OmniTrack [30]. OmniTrack en-ables customized tracking by allowing users to define their own trackers to trackand log data relevant to them. We created a custom version of the OmniTrack appwith our own Time Well Spent (TWS) tracker (Figure 4.1). OmniTrack can sched-ule reminders which will prompt users to log an entry in the app through a mobilesystem notification. An initial list of activities and feelings are populated basedon results from Study 1, but users are can customize the list based on their ownworkday experience.4.1.3 VisualizationWe also created a web-based visualization for participants to review their data.Our visualization was implemented with the MEAN stack [1] and utilized D3 forrendering charts. It consists of both a daily and weekly view (see Figure 4.2). Thedaily view visualizes logged entry data on a daily level, allowing users to see howtheir TWS ratings change throughout the day, and what activities and feelings theyare experiencing at a particular time. The weekly view aggregates data across aweek, allowing users to compare TWS ratings across each day of the week andto see how their ratings are distributed. It also displays a list of the top positive,negative, and fluctuating (varying TWS ratings) activities and feelings.4.1.4 ApparatusThe OmniTrack platform and our visualization web app was set up on an Ubuntu18.04.2 virtual machine (20GB disk space, 4GB RAM, 1 CPU). All logged data22Figure 4.1: Our TWS tracker on the OmniTrack app. Users inputted the timeof entry, rated their TWS, and logged their activities and emotions. Mul-tiple activities and emotions could be selected, and the lists were cus-tomizable.was stored on a MongoDB instance and was only accessed locally on the samevirtual machine.4.2 MethodWe conducted an in-situ study over the course of four weeks to investigate theimpact of and participants’ reaction to our ESM-based intervention. Supportingmaterial for Study 2 can be found in Appendix B.4.2.1 ParticipantsParticipants were recruited through convenience sampling and UBC’s public studyrecruitment platform. To be eligible for the study, participants needed to (REQ1)be a graduate student enrolled in a research-based program; (REQ2) not take anextended (more than 3 working days) holiday for the next month; (REQ3) havesome dissatisfaction with how they currently spend their time at work, and a desire23Figure 4.2: (a) In the daily view: a Gantt-like chart that visualizes activitiesand feelings. TWS ratings are colour-coded. (b) In the weekly view:the chart allows users to compare TWS ratings across various times anddays of the week.for improvement in that area of their life; (REQ4) not have taken part in Study 1.We chose to only recruit graduate students (REQ1) because of their often flex-ible schedules, task autonomy, and frequent interactions with technology, facetsthat all make up a modern knowledge worker. In addition, graduate students werechosen for their ease of access for our research team. REQ3 was chosen as theself-reflection was found from Study 1 to be more helpful for individuals who aredissatisfied with the way they spend their time. It’s also an important part of CBTthat the individual is engaged with the self-monitoring, so participants should havean active interest in self-improvement.Of the 57 people who completed the eligibility survey, we recruited the 22participants (8 females, 13 males, 1 opted out of reporting gender) who satisfied theeligibility requirements. Their ages ranged from 21 to 35 (M = 27.1, SD = 3.42).Participants were pursuing graduate degrees in various fields (Computer Science,Engineering, Forestry, Linguistics, etc.). We randomly assigned them to one ofthe conditions, with the exception that if a participant assigned to the interventiondid not own an Android phone, they were reassigned to the control group. All24participants were given a $50 CAD gift card for their involvement in the study.4.2.2 ProcedureFigure 4.3: A timeline of the procedure of Study 2.Participants in both the control and intervention conditions completed threesurveys (initial, mid, final) as they progressed in the study. In each survey (initial,mid, final), participants first defined their personal concept of ‘Time Well Spent’.Then, they rated how well they spent their time at work (TWS), their level of satis-faction with their time at work (satisfaction), their awareness of the activities duringtheir workday (awareness of activities), and their awareness of their feelings duringthe workday (awareness of emotions) on 5-point Likert scales. They also listed thetop 5 Time Well Spent (positive) and Time Not Well Spent (negative) activities.Participants began the study by signing a consent form and completing theinitial survey. After completing the initial survey, participants in the interventiongroup were given a slideshow with installation and usage instructions for the Om-niTrack application and our web-based visualization. In addition, members of theresearch team were available for technical support. Experience sampling began theday after the intervention was successfully set up, for 2 weeks (14 days). In our in-tervention, we made use of interval-contingent sampling [25] during participants’primary working hours (default was set to 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays, atthe start of the hour, for a total of 9 reminders a day). Participants also receivedan additional email reminder to check and reflect on the visualization at the startof each day (9:00 AM). Although participants received 9 reminders each day, theywere allowed to customize the times and number of hourly reminders to fit their25own working schedule. Participants were only required to log a minimum of 4entries a day for it to be counted as a complete day. In the period of 2 weeks, ifparticipants did not complete 8 days, we extended the period until they did.After 2 weeks, all participants filled out the mid survey. The mid survey askedintervention group participants to rate the usefulness of the intervention. For thefinal 2 weeks, intervention group participants were allowed to continue taking partin the intervention, but they were no longer required to. However, since only oneparticipant continued to use the intervention, we treat this time period as one ofno intervention. The mid and final surveys also asked participants to comparetheir responses to the above questions from the previous surveys and elaborate ondifferences, if any. Upon completion of the final survey (2 weeks after the midsurvey), we conducted a 5-10 minute semi-structured interview where we askedparticipants of both groups to elaborate on their experiences in the study, speakingparticularly to their awareness of whether or not their time was well spent. Priorto the post-study interview, we did not mention the term ‘productivity’. Wheneverthe term was mentioned by participants in the survey responses, it came from themwithout prompting. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed for furtheranalysis.4.2.3 Data AnalysisCoding of TWS DefinitionsFor the TWS definitions, I coded the 66 definitions (22 across 3 surveys) accordingto our themes and subthemes from Study 1. We then followed the same thematicanalysis approach [11] for analyzing both the open-ended survey responses (e.g.,explanation of differences across surveys) and the interview transcripts. In terms ofanalysis for the interviews, another researcher and I independently coded a subsetof the entries (6 transcripts; 27%) to identify emerging themes in regards to theimpact of the study and awareness changes, often multi-coding definitions as theycan include more than one theme. The full set of 22 were coded by myself afteran agreement was reached. We used this set of codes to continue coding the self-reported differences in definitions after verifying the coding worked for this similar26type of question.Within-Subjects Changes in TWS DefinitionsAfter coding all the definitions and in order to take a first step in understandingwhether participants were refining their definition of TWS during our study, we (1)analyze whether there was a change in definition themes identified in each surveyand (2) assess whether they were aware of this change. We base this assessment onthe survey question where we show the current and previous definition and ask ifthere is a difference and why. This comparison is done twice for each participant:(a) between initial and mid surveys, and (b) between mid and final surveys.Likert Scale AnalysisIn each of the 3 surveys, participants rated how well they spent their time atwork (TWS), their level of satisfaction with their time at work (satisfaction), theirawareness of the activities during their workday (awareness of activities), and theirawareness of their feelings during the workday (awareness of emotions) on 5-pointLikert scales. We ran a 2x3 (group: control, intervention x survey: initial, mid,final) aligned rank transform ANOVA [60] on each of our 4 dependent variables ofTWS, satisfaction, awareness of activities, and awareness of emotions ratings.4.3 ResultsWe first report a descriptive summary of participants’ logged intervention entries,then detail participants’ changes in awareness, TWS definition, and satisfaction.From this point on we will refer to specific participants by their participant number(Px for intervention participants and Cx for control participants).Descriptive Summary of Logged Intervention EntriesMost participants completed within the expected 2 week duration and without tech-nological issues. 6 out of 11 intervention group participants completed the inter-vention stage within the expected 2-week duration, by completing at least 8 daysof the intervention (minimum of 4 entries per day). The other 5 participants wentover by an average of 1.4 days (SD = 0.55), due to various reasons such as hav-27Control (n=11) Intervention (n=11)No Change 2 (C5, C11) 0Minimal 2 (C4, C7) 3 (P3, P9, P10)Not Lasting 2 (C2, C11) 1 (P7)Activities 6 (C1, C3, C6, C8, C9, C10) 6 (P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P11)Emotional/PhysicalState08 (P1, P2, P4, P5, P6, P7,P8, P11)Table 4.1: Participants reported that they experienced no or minimal aware-ness change, awareness that was not lasting, increased awareness of ac-tivities, or increased awareness of their emotional/physical state. Someparticipants (C11, P7) were classified with more than one label.ing irregular workdays when tracking wasn’t possible and technical issues causingmissed notifications. In total, there were 630 entries across all participants. Therewas high variation (M = 57.3, SD = 16.88) in the number of logged entries perparticipant. The average number of logged entries per day (on days with at leastone logged entry) was 5.57 (SD = 1.8). Most entries occurred during the weekdays(590 out of 630 total entries, 93.7%). Participants did not visit the visualizationfrequently. Some only visited the visualization after every couple of days, whereasothers only visited it once or twice throughout the entire two weeks (M = 2.27 daysvisited during the two weeks, SD = 2.3 days).4.3.1 Changes in AwarenessIn order to understand the participant’s perceived effect of the study on their aware-ness, they were explicitly asked to comment on their awareness changes during theinterview. All participants were categorized based on their responses in the post-study interview (see Table 4.1).The Intervention Led to Increased Emotional AwarenessOnly those in the intervention group (8 out of 11) experienced increased awarenessof their emotional and physical state while working. Quantitative results from our28F Df Df.res pSatisfactionGroup .0143 1 20 .9061Survey 6.647 2 40 .0032 **Group:Survey 1.129 2 40 .3334Awareness of EmotionsGroup .5968 1 20 .4488Survey .2127 2 40 .8093Group:Survey 6.703 2 40 .0031 **Table 4.2: Summary of test results from aligned rank transformationANOVA. There were no significant (p < .05) main or interaction effectsfor TWS and awareness of activities, so we omit these results.Likert-scale survey questions triangulated these findings. There was an impact ofthe intervention on mean awareness of emotions ratings across the three surveys(interaction effect: F2,40 = 6.703, p = .0031, also see Figure 4.4 and Table 4.2). Asa post-hoc analysis, we performed an interaction contrasts test, looking at differ-ences of differences, adjusted by the Holm-Bonferroni method. The difference inemotion awareness ratings between the initial to final surveys (p = 0.002) and theinitial to mid surveys (p = 0.007) was shown to be greater in the intervention groupthan the control group. In other words, there was more positive change in emo-tional awareness ratings as participants completed the surveys for the interventiongroup than for the control group, indicating that the intervention had more of animpact on emotional awareness. There was no difference from mid to final (p =0.64). There were no significant main effects for emotion awareness.The Intervention led to Awareness of Positive FeelingsThe intervention led to awareness of positive feelings. 6 participants explicitlynoted in the interview that they were aware of positive feelings in addition to nega-tive feelings. This is important because it validates our decision to use continuoustracking instead of only tracking at triggering events (during negative feelings) inorder to reinforce positive feelings instead of only highlighting negative ones. This29Figure 4.4: Mean awareness of emotion ratings for both the control and in-tervention group, as well as initial, mid, and final surveys. There was asignificant interaction effect in emotional awareness ratings, where theintervention group had more positive change in ratings compared to thecontrol group across the final-initial and mid-initial surveys.increase in emotional awareness also led to positive feelings at the end of the day:“I knew at the end of the day how I spent the entire day, I felt if I had spent the daywell then I was more confident” (P11).For P5, emotional awareness helped to bring light to the positive feelings theyexperienced each day. P5 said that before, they considered their feelings “onlywhen I was stressed, I would think ‘that didn’t go well’...” They realized that“now, even the good thing[s] or even if things are just going steady, it’s importantto have that awareness. Things aren’t always going to be amazing in a day, butthat’s okay. If you have certain moments of good happiness or whatever, or just30productivity, that’s fine too.”Emotions and Productivity are LinkedThree participants explicitly made a connection between their emotional and phys-ical state and its impact on their productivity. P6 states: “It can make you moreproductive if you’re aware of what’s bringing your mood up or down.” P4 also feltthat awareness of one’s emotional state was like a “sanity check”, and that the in-tervention was “just like how therapists get you to record a journal.” Interestingly,they also became aware of the converse: the impact of their productivity on theirmood or feelings. For example, P8 states: “On days where I got a lot done, it mademe happy to put in my entry.” However, not all participants felt this way – someparticipants came to the realization that just because they were being productive, itdidn’t mean that they would feel satisfied about it. P4 illustrates this in the quotebelow:“More often than not, since I’m not very happy with the work that I’m doingI would almost always end up feeling miserable even though I was ‘being produc-tive’. At least now I realize that what’s making me productive is also making mereally really sad. So now I’m trying to balance stuff, or at least not judge myselftoo harshly when I’m not being productive.”The Intervention Led to Understanding of DistractionsEven though participants in both the intervention and control group experiencedan increase in their awareness of their workday activities, only the interventiongroup better understood the amount of time they spent being distracted. Partic-ipants mentioned that the change was with respect to an awareness about whichactivities contributed positively or negatively to their idea of TWS. By reflectingon their activities in the survey, C10 “realized that [even though] a couple of thingsare useful, they are not the best way to spend my time.” However, only participantsin the intervention group (P4, P6, P8) mentioned that the intervention helped themget a better understanding of the amount of time that they spent being distracted,in contrast to just the activities that were distracting. P8 elaborates: “I think ithelped me more precisely quantify the amount of time I got distracted throughout31the workday.”Participants from both groups that did not experience any or only minimalawareness change felt like they were already aware of their shortcomings in termsof how they spent their time, and that the surveys or intervention only promptedthem to think about it slightly more. For example, P9 remarked, “Even before, Iwas aware that I was not completely using my time in an efficient way so I don’tthink my awareness has changed that much.”Some participants also commented about the ephemeral nature of their aware-ness change. C11 and P7 were classified with this label, as well as with the ‘NoChange’ and ‘Activities’ labels, respectively. This was done only because C11believed that their awareness did not change in part because there was no lastingimpact, whereas P7 explicitly stated that they did become more aware of their time:“The whole exercise of reflecting on what I do during the day made me more awareof how I spend my time. Especially after the first week of using it, the impact wasthe greatest [...] but then after the first week I kind of stopped taking it so seriouslyand I moved back into my old habits.” (P7)Aligning Perception and Reality in the WorkdayThree participants (P1, P6, P8) in the intervention group mentioned on their ownthat the intervention helped them recognize the difference between their ‘percep-tion’ and ‘reality’ of how they spent their time. P6 said that the intervention allowedthem to evaluate whether or not an activity (e.g., taking breaks) that they perceivedto be important was actually important in reality: “Before the study I definitelythought taking adequate breaks and caring for myself was important, but I didn’thave a framework to evaluate myself in that way. Now I can make sure that myperception matches my reality.”On another note, P8 realized that they had thought that the day was shorter thanit actually was, and that the intervention helped to identify that belief: “I think ithelped me realize how much [time] I have in the day and how much I don’t utilizemy time properly. I think in a good way and a bad way. In a bad way because Ikind of felt ashamed that I wasted so much of my time rather than doing somethinggood with it. And in a good way because I felt that there was so much time in the32way and I could get so much done, rather than always feeling like I always havea lot to do.” What’s common to both these experiences is the underlying themethat our perceptions and beliefs about time can play a large role in how we feelabout our workday; and that our ESM-based intervention has potential in helpingto uncover or evaluate beliefs.4.3.2 Broadening Personal TWS DefinitionAs described in section 4.2.3, we compared themes of definitions between surveysfor each participant and assessed whether they identified these changes in the sur-veys.Initial to mid surveys: 7 intervention group participants and 6 control groupparticipants changed TWS themes between their definitions. When shown the twodefinitions in the mid survey and asked to compare them, 7/7 intervention groupparticipants and only 2/6 control group participants saw a difference in the defini-tions and gave a reason for the change.For the intervention group, the coded changes in definition match up with theself-reported changes in definition. For example, P5’s initial definition of TWSwas focused only on making progress in their work, but their mid-survey definitioninvolved satisfaction, meaning, and physical health instead. When asked aboutthe differences, they noted that paying attention to spontaneous moments whileusing the intervention led them to change their concept of TWS. For the controlgroup, the coded changes were subtle and the differences were often not notableto the participants. For example, the initial definition for C6 included 4 subthemes(Progress, High Quality of Work, Efficiency, Satisfaction or Achievement) whiletheir mid-survey definition continued to contain Progress, it also included 3 dif-ferent subthemes (Long-Term Plan, Mental Focus, Meaningful and Fun). Whenasked about the differences, they said nothing has changed about their personaldefinition.Participants in the intervention group were more likely to shift to being moreemotionally aware. According to the coding of their definitions, 3 participantsstarted listing satisfaction with their work as part of their definition and holisti-cally broadening their definition to fall under the ‘how I feel’ theme. The same 333participants noticed their change in definition in the survey and explained how thetracking had helped make this change. For example, P4 noted “I think all the track-ing is making me more conscious of the actions that lead to a satisfactory outcomeand made me realize that productivity is not necessarily the same as happiness.”This evidence for reflecting feeling in TWS definition is a first check on increasingawareness for the intervention group.Mid to final surveys: 2 intervention group participants and 4 control groupparticipants added or removed a TWS theme to their definition. When shown thetwo definitions in the final survey and asked to compare them, the same 2 inter-vention group participants and 2 control group participants saw a difference in thedefinitions and gave a reason for the change.Overall, we found that intervention participants were more likely to recognizea change in their definition and could articulate that change and give an explanationfor the change. Those in the control group were more likely to say there was nochange in definition even if there were explicit changes in TWS themes.4.3.3 SatisfactionFrom our Likert-scale data, we found that there was a mean difference in satisfac-tion ratings across the surveys (main effect: F2,40 = 6.647, p = .0032, also see Table4.2), averaged across both the control and intervention groups. We performed apost-hoc Tukey test on satisfaction, showing that satisfaction increased overall (p =0.0027) from initial (M = 2.682, SD = 0.780) to final (M = 3.318, SD = 0.894). Atrend suggests that satisfaction also increased (p = 0.0502) from mid (M = 2.864,SD = 0.889) to final. Surprisingly, there was no significant increase (p = 0.4977)in satisfaction from initial to mid, which, for the intervention group, would haveconsisted of the intervention stage. There were no significant main effect for groupand no interaction effects.From the initial to final survey in the control group, 4 participants had an in-crease in satisfaction, 5 showed no change, and 2 had a decrease. On the other hand,in the intervention group, 7 participants had an increase, 4 showed no change, and0 decreased. Interestingly, the intermediate steps of initial to mid and mid to finalwere either not significant or only showed a trend, respectively, potentially hinting34Figure 4.5: Mean satisfaction ratings for each survey level, averaged acrossboth the control and intervention groups. There was a significant maineffect for satisfaction ratings across the surveys, where there was anincrease in satisfaction from the initial to final survey as well as fromthe mid to final surveys.at longer-term implications for satisfaction. In each survey, participants were askedfor an explanation for their rating of their satisfaction, so some participants gave areason for their change in satisfaction.In the control group, 2 participants commented directly on their change of sat-isfaction. One began recognizing personal work goals and was satisfied they werebeing met consistently. Another participant noted they had been thinking aboutwhat TWS means to them, but between the mid and final survey they finished writ-ing their thesis and it was satisfying seeing a concrete milestone reached.The intervention group had 2 participants who commented directly on their35change of satisfaction. One noted that tracking made them more aware of dis-tractions and they have changed their actions to eliminate distractions. Anotherintervention participant felt more satisfied because using the app to track time gavethem the feeling of having things to do everyday and they chose to continue usingthe app until the end of the study.Only one participant in the intervention group had decreased satisfaction at themidpoint of the study after the intervention. P6 had holistic definitions of TWSand productivity before the study and said that tracking with the app caused himto become aware of exactly how much time he spends unproductively. After twoweeks of tracking, he stated “I realize that I spend a lot of unfocused time readingnews online and this often has a negative effect on my mood.” Despite reporting adip in their level of satisfaction at the mid survey, P6 still felt like it was useful toknow what was affecting his mood, especially for productivity.4.3.4 Opinions of the InterventionParticipants felt that the intervention was moderately useful (M = 3.55, SD = 0.934)when rating on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = extremely useful). The intervention wasakin to an external check-in that, for some participants, was like a “coach” (P9),“therapist” (P4) or “someone to give answers to about how you spent the lasthour” (P11). For P9, the intervention “gave an extra push to finish things today soI could record it and say I was productive.”However, some participants experienced a sense of stress from the interven-tion’s hourly sampling. P10 states: “It was pretty stressful actually because I needto check the tool almost every single hour.” P8 also felt pressure to ensure they hada ‘good’ hour: “It made me very conscious of when the next hour was approachingand if I hadn’t had a good hour, then it made me very sad [...] I should have donemore.”4.4 DiscussionWe have made progress at capturing a more holistic concept of work. In Study 1 wefound that capturing holistic thinking was possible using the term TWS, and ourdata hinted that emotion could play a part in determining whether time was spent36well or not. In Study 2, our results show that using our CBT-inspired experiencesampling method, which required users to capture their emotions (more explicitlythan in Study 1), as well as activities, shapes users’ personal concept of TWS andgives them the self-awareness to articulate these changes. These users also showedsignificant improvements in emotional awareness compared to the control group.Consistent with CBT, we found that perceptions and beliefs about time impactfeelings about work. What was promising about our intervention was that it had thepotential to give participants a ‘framework’ for evaluating their own perceptions,and to see to what extent they line up with reality. This process has some similari-ties with that provided by a CBT therapist, who aims to help patients identify andeliminate irrational or disruptive thoughts and beliefs.Our work on TWS is a first step towards a more holistic performance measurefor knowledge workers. The method that we used in Study 2 is clearly not one thatcould be used, in its current form, by company management, for example, to assesstheir workforce. It is too heavyweight. With considerable more work, the goal willbe to refine the method so that it can be lightweight for workers to complete and yetstill provide output “data” that allows both workers and management to measureand track over time, in a standardized way, holistically how time is being spent.In terms of tracking tools, in current tools like RescueTime [53], productivityis quantified through a combination of labeling activities as productive or not andmeasuring the amount of time spent on each activity. Tools like this are excep-tional at this basic level of tracking, easily providing the user with visualizations,text analysis, and trends. We can and should rely on these tools to do the labo-rious parts of tracking, but for these tools to work more holistically, humans willneed to contribute and reflect on their feelings, thoughts, and personal beliefs. Apossibility for extending current productivity-based time tracking tools is to intro-duce lightweight self-monitoring and simulate a CBT-like method. Every once ina while a reflection could be triggered asking the user to reflect more holisticallyon whether the time was well spent and their feelings with respect to the trackedactivities.Another design implication is the effect of emotional awareness. There is spaceto explore whether this awareness can lead to manipulation of emotions in orderto improve productivity. For example, a tool could have the goal of maintaining37a positive affect balance (a ratio of higher positive affect compared to negative af-fect), as this has been correlated with higher productivity and has the added benefitthat maintaining a positive affect balance is inherently holistic. In the near futureuser-logged self-reflections of affect would have to suffice, but in the longer termit’s possible that affect could be detected automatically and actions such as whetherto continue working or take a break could be suggested.38Chapter 5Threats to Validity5.1 Construct ValidityFor both studies, our focus was on characterizing TWS as a holistic concept, there-fore we deliberately omitted any mention of ‘productivity’ in our study method.This decision may have influenced participants to think holistically because of thestudy design, rather than because of their reflections on TWS. However, we do notbelieve this was the case, as some participants did not reflect emotionally, and stillhad a TWS definition that mirrored more traditional productivity definitions.Asking participants to compare between TWS and productivity may enable usto more directly tease apart the differences, but there could be challenges whencomparing between two abstract terms, especially when ‘productivity’ has beenshown to be a complex concept. Extending the scope of the study to the entireday (beyond primary working hours) and involving more types of workers is worthexploring.5.2 Internal ValidityObjective logging would be more accurate than self-reporting, but objective log-ging on a computer does not capture activities away from the computer. Sincewe were most interested in capturing holistic recollection of the day’s activities,we felt self-reporting was appropriate and necessary. The experience sampling39methodology we use has the standard design limitations. The constant surveyingis annoying and may lead to non-compliance from participants. Through pilotingthe first study, we found that 4 hourly samples were sufficient for reflecting on theworkday and participants were not obligated to complete all the surveys on time.We had full compliance with all participants in Study 1. Study 2 was double thelength of Study 1 and the hourly sampling over this 2 week period was found tobe annoying and tiresome, thus exploring alternate data collection methods or timewindows would be valuable. Despite the fatigue, all participants in our study wereengaged and completed the required samples.Our second study was also limited by potentially confounding factors. Basedon our current method, it is difficult to say whether the change in awareness ofemotions was because of the CBT-inspired questions or because of the frequentsampling. If the control group had also received ESMs, but of a neutral nature, wecould better refine the contribution of having participants reflect on their emotions.This will be important future work. Instead our contribution lies in the combinationof sampling that includes emotion reflection and the fact that we saw the impact ofthis combination.5.3 External ValidityOur research only captures 40 definitions from across 13 different occupations ofknowledge workers, thus the themes are not likely exhaustive. However, our re-sults are sufficiently promising to see if using the concept of TWS in conjunctionwith an intervention, might influence workers’ awareness of how they are spend-ing their time. Furthermore, in Study 2 we only used graduate students as partici-pants. While graduate students have a flexible schedule, they may be more biasedtowards focusing on their own work than working in teams to accomplish organiza-tional goals. For this reason, the results may not be generalizable to all knowledgeworkers. Another limitation we faced in designing this study is biasing individu-als towards thinking more about TWS or productivity. All participants were askedpriming questions about the concept of TWS, so we did not have a true controlgroup.40Chapter 6ConclusionIn this thesis, we report on an experience sampling study (n=40) that provides apreliminary characterization of Time Well Spent, and shows empirical evidencethat the term TWS captures a more holistic notion of work. We further report on astudy (n=22) that provides an empirical understanding of the impact of reflectingon TWS, especially in terms of workers gaining emotional awareness and seeingchange in their personal concept of TWS. As we think about the holistic re-designof current productivity and time tracking tools to support the modern knowledgeworker’s needs, we envision highlighting the integration of emotion tracking andthe need for human self-reflection in addition to automatic tracking. This thesisbrings us one step closer to not only a more holistic, realistic, and standardizedmeasure of work performance for knowledge workers, but also a healthier andmore emotionally-aware workforce. Today’s information age provides us with amultitude of personal and professional technologies that greatly assist us in ourwork, but often at the cost of increased stress. A holistic way of thinking abouttime at work moves us to having our technology working for us instead of againstus.41Bibliography[1] Mean.js - full-stack javascript using mongodb, express, angularjs, andnode.js, 2019. URL http://meanjs.org/. → page 22[2] American College Health Association National College Health Assessment.Graduate/professional reference group executive summary, spring 2019,2019. Available at http://www.acha-ncha.org/. → page 6[3] American College Health Association National College Health Assessment.Canadian reference group executive summary, spring 2019, 2019. Availableat http://www.acha-ncha.org/. → page 6[4] American Psychological Association. Mental health issues increasedsignificantly in young adults over last decade, 3 2019.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190315110908.htm. →page 1[5] Anxiety Canada. What is cbt?, 2008.https://anxietycanada.com/sites/default/files/What is CBT.pdf. → page 7[6] A. P. Association. Stress in america: Stress and current events. stress inamerica survey, 2019. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2019/stress-america-2019.pdf.→ page 6[7] A. B. Bakker and M. P. Bal. Weekly work engagement and performance: Astudy among starting teachers. Journal of occupational and organizationalpsychology, 83(1):189–206, 2010. → page 4[8] J. Bennett-Levy, P. Farrand, H. Christensen, and K. Griffiths. Oxford guideto low intensity CBT interventions. Oxford University Press, 2010. → page2242[9] J. P. Borst, N. A. Taatgen, and H. van Rijn. What makes interruptionsdisruptive?: A process-model account of the effects of the problem statebottleneck on task interruption and resumption. In Proceedings of the 33rdAnnual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’15, pages 2971–2980, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM. ISBN978-1-4503-3145-6. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702156. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2702123.2702156. → page 4[10] P. M. Bosch-Sijtsema, V. Ruohoma¨ki, and M. Vartiainen. Knowledge workproductivity in distributed teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6):533–546, 2009. → page 4[11] V. Braun and V. Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitativeresearch in psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006. → pages 12, 26[12] D. Clements-Croome and Y. Kaluarachchi. Assessment and measurement ofproductivity. In Creating the productive workplace, pages 151–188. CRCPress, 1999. → pages 1, 4[13] S. Consolvo, P. Klasnja, D. W. McDonald, D. Avrahami, J. Froehlich,L. LeGrand, R. Libby, K. Mosher, and J. A. Landay. Flowers or a robotarmy?: Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing,UbiComp ’08, pages 54–63, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. ISBN978-1-60558-136-1. doi:10.1145/1409635.1409644. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1409635.1409644. → pages 6, 18[14] S. Consolvo, D. W. McDonald, T. Toscos, M. Y. Chen, J. Froehlich,B. Harrison, P. Klasnja, A. LaMarca, L. LeGrand, R. Libby, I. Smith, andJ. A. Landay. Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of ubifit garden. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI ’08, pages 1797–1806, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357335. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1357054.1357335. → page 6[15] M. Czerwinski, E. Horvitz, and S. Wilhite. A diary study of task switchingand interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems, CHI ’04, pages 175–182, New York, NY,USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-702-8. doi:10.1145/985692.985715.URL http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1145/985692.985715. →page 443[16] L. Dabbish, G. Mark, and V. M. Gonza´lez. Why do i keep interruptingmyself?: Environment, habit and self-interruption. In Proceedings of theSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11,pages 3127–3130, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. ISBN978-1-4503-0228-9. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979405. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979405. → page 4[17] N. G. Dodd and D. C. Ganster. The interactive effects of variety, autonomy,and feedback on attitudes and performance. Journal of organizationalbehavior, 17(4):329–347, 1996. → page 4[18] K. K. Fitzpatrick, A. Darcy, and M. Vierhile. Delivering cognitive behaviortherapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using afully automated conversational agent (woebot): a randomized controlledtrial. JMIR mental health, 4(2):e19, 2017. doi:10.2196/mental.7785. URLhttps://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785. → page 7[19] T. Fritz, E. M. Huang, G. C. Murphy, and T. Zimmermann. Persuasivetechnology in the real world: A study of long-term use of activity sensingdevices for fitness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14, pages 487–496, New York, NY,USA, 2014. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-2473-1.doi:10.1145/2556288.2557383. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557383. → page 6[20] R. Gasser, D. Brodbeck, M. Degen, J. Luthiger, R. Wyss, and S. Reichlin.Persuasiveness of a mobile lifestyle coaching application using socialfacilitation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference onPersuasive Technology for Human Well-being, PERSUASIVE’06, pages27–38, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-34291-5,978-3-540-34291-5. URLhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1986822.1986828. → page 6[21] J. R. Hackman and G. R. Oldham. Motivation through the design of work:Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2):250–279, 1976. → page 4[22] T. Harris. How tech could protect us from distraction. Video, December2014. Retrieved September 18, 2019 from https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan harris how better tech could protect us from distraction. → page 2[23] B. P. Haynes. An evaluation of office productivity measurement. Journal ofCorporate Real Estate, 9(3):144–155, 2007. → page 144[24] B. P. Haynes. An evaluation of the impact of the office environment onproductivity. Facilities, 26(5/6):178–195, 2008. → page 4[25] J. M. Hektner, J. A. Schmidt, and M. Csikszentmihalyi. Experiencesampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage, 2007. →page 25[26] S. Hoffman, A. Sawyer, and A. Fang. The empirical status of the “newwave” of cbt,”. Psychiatr Clin North Am, 33(3):701–710, 2010. → page 20[27] J. Jin and L. A. Dabbish. Self-interruption on the computer: A typology ofdiscretionary task interleaving. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09, pages 1799–1808, NewYork, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. ISBN 978-1-60558-246-7.doi:10.1145/1518701.1518979. URLhttp://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1145/1518701.1518979. →page 4[28] M. Kay, E. K. Choe, J. Shepherd, B. Greenstein, N. Watson, S. Consolvo,and J. A. Kientz. Lullaby: A capture &#38; access system for understandingthe sleep environment. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference onUbiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’12, pages 226–234, New York, NY, USA,2012. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-1224-0. doi:10.1145/2370216.2370253.URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2370216.2370253. → page 6[29] Y.-H. Kim, J. H. Jeon, E. K. Choe, B. Lee, K. Kim, and J. Seo. Timeaware:Leveraging framing effects to enhance personal productivity. In Proceedingsof the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’16, pages 272–283, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. ISBN978-1-4503-3362-7. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858428. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858428. → pages 2, 5[30] Y.-H. Kim, J. H. Jeon, B. Lee, E. K. Choe, and J. Seo. Omnitrack: A flexibleself-tracking approach leveraging semi-automated tracking. Proc. ACMInteract. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 1(3):67:1–67:28, Sept. 2017.ISSN 2474-9567. doi:10.1145/3130930. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3130930. → page 22[31] Y.-H. Kim, E. K. Choe, B. Lee, and J. Seo. Understanding personalproductivity: How knowledge workers define, evaluate, and reflect on theirproductivity. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pages 615:1–615:12, New York, NY, USA,452019. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5970-2. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300845.URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3290605.3300845. → pages 1, 5, 17, 18[32] K. A. Kobak, J. C. Mundt, and B. Kennard. Integrating technology intocognitive behavior therapy for adolescent depression: a pilot study. Annalsof general psychiatry, 14(1):37, 2015. → page 7[33] J. J. Lin, L. Mamykina, S. Lindtner, G. Delajoux, and H. B. Strub.Fish’n’steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computergame. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on UbiquitousComputing, UbiComp’06, pages 261–278, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-39634-5. doi:10.1007/11853565 16.URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11853565 16. → pages 6, 7[34] G. Loewenstein and J. S. Lerner. The role of affect in decision making.Handbook of affective science, 619(642):3, 2003. → page 6[35] Y. Lutchyn, P. Johns, A. Roseway, and M. Czerwinski. Moodtracker:Monitoring collective emotions in the workplace. In 2015 InternationalConference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pages295–301, Sep. 2015. doi:10.1109/ACII.2015.7344586. → page 1[36] G. Mark, V. M. Gonzalez, and J. Harris. No task left behind?: Examiningthe nature of fragmented work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’05, pages 321–330, NewYork, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-998-5.doi:10.1145/1054972.1055017. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017. → page 4[37] G. Mark, Y. Wang, and M. Niiya. Stress and multitasking in everydaycollege life: An empirical study of online activity. In Proceedings of theSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14,pages 41–50, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-2473-1.doi:10.1145/2556288.2557361. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557361. → pages 1, 6[38] G. Mark, M. Czerwinski, S. Iqbal, and P. Johns. Workplace indicators ofmood: Behavioral and cognitive correlates of mood among informationworkers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on DigitalHealth Conference, DH ’16, pages 29–36, New York, NY, USA, 2016.ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4224-7. doi:10.1145/2896338.2896360. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2896338.2896360. → page 646[39] G. Mark, S. T. Iqbal, M. Czerwinski, P. Johns, and A. Sano. Neurotics can’tfocus: An in situ study of online multitasking in the workplace. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI ’16, pages 1739–1744, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.ISBN 978-1-4503-3362-7. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858202. URLhttp://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1145/2858036.2858202. →page 6[40] G. Mark, S. T. Iqbal, M. Czerwinski, P. Johns, A. Sano, and Y. Lutchyn.Email duration, batching and self-interruption: Patterns of email use onproductivity and stress. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’16, pages 1717–1728, NewYork, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-3362-7.doi:10.1145/2858036.2858262. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858262. → pages 1, 6[41] G. Mark, S. Iqbal, and M. Czerwinski. How blocking distractions affectsworkplace focus and productivity. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACMInternational Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing andProceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on WearableComputers, UbiComp ’17, pages 928–934, New York, NY, USA, 2017.ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5190-4. doi:10.1145/3123024.3124558. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3123024.3124558. → page 4[42] G. Mark, M. Czerwinski, and S. T. Iqbal. Effects of individual differences inblocking workplace distractions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, pages92:1–92:12, New York, NY, USA, 2018. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5620-6.doi:10.1145/3173574.3173666. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3173574.3173666. → pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 18[43] M. Matthews and G. Doherty. In the mood: engaging teenagers inpsychotherapy using mobile phones. In Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 2947–2956.ACM, 2011. → page 22[44] D. McDuff, A. Karlson, A. Kapoor, A. Roseway, and M. Czerwinski.Affectaura: An intelligent system for emotional memory. In Proceedings ofthe SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12,pages 849–858, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. ISBN978-1-4503-1015-4. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208525. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2208525. → pages 2, 647[45] A. Meyer, E. T. Barr, C. Bird, and T. Zimmermann. Today was a good day:The daily life of software developers. IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering, 2019. → page 5[46] A. N. Meyer, T. Fritz, G. C. Murphy, and T. Zimmermann. Softwaredevelopers’ perceptions of productivity. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACMSIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of SoftwareEngineering, FSE 2014, page 19–29, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.ISBN 9781450330565. doi:10.1145/2635868.2635892. → page 5[47] A. N. Meyer, G. C. Murphy, T. Zimmermann, and T. Fritz. Designrecommendations for self-monitoring in the workplace: Studies in softwaredevelopment. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 1(CSCW):79:1–79:24,Dec. 2017. ISSN 2573-0142. doi:10.1145/3134714. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3134714. → page 5[48] R. Murphy, S. Straebler, Z. Cooper, and C. G. Fairburn. Cognitivebehavioral therapy for eating disorders. Psychiatric Clinics, 33(3):611–627,2010. → page 7[49] P. Paredes, R. Giald-Bachrach, M. Czerwinski, A. Roseway, K. Rowan, andJ. Hernandez. Poptherapy: Coping with stress through pop-culture. ICST, 72014. doi:10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2014.255070. → page 1[50] R. D. Pritchard. Productivity measurement and improvement:Organizational case studies. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995. → page 1[51] J. O. Prochaska and W. F. Velicer. The transtheoretical model of healthbehavior change. American journal of health promotion, 12(1):38–48, 1997.→ pages 3, 6, 18[52] J. Proudfoot, J. Clarke, M.-R. Birch, A. E. Whitton, G. Parker,V. Manicavasagar, V. Harrison, H. Christensen, and D. Hadzi-Pavlovic.Impact of a mobile phone and web program on symptom and functionaloutcomes for people with mild-to-moderate depression, anxiety and stress: arandomised controlled trial. BMC psychiatry, 13(1):312, 2013. → page 7[53] RescueTime. Rescuetime: Time management software for stayingproductive and happy in the modern workplace., 2019.https://www.rescuetime.com. → pages 2, 5, 37[54] M. Robichaud and M. J. Dugas. The Generalized anxiety disorderworkbook: A comprehensive CBT guide for coping with uncertainty, worry,and fear. New Harbinger Publications, 2015. → page 748[55] smtplib. Smtp protocol client. https://docs.python.org/3/library/smtplib.html,2020. [Accessed January 7, 2020]. → page 12[56] A. J. Spivack and B. A. Rubin. Spaces to control creative output of theknowledge worker: a managerial paradox? In Proceedings of the 2011iConference, pages 312–318. ACM, 2011. → page 4[57] T. W. Taris and P. J. Schreurs. Well-being and organizational performance:An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis.Work & Stress, 23(2):120–136, 2009. → page 4[58] twilio. https://www.twilio.com, 2020. [Accessed January 7, 2020]. → page12[59] S. Whittaker, V. Kalnikaite, V. Hollis, and A. Guydish. ’don’t waste mytime’: Use of time information improves focus. In Proceedings of the 2016CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’16, pages1729–1738, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-3362-7.doi:10.1145/2858036.2858193. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858193. → page 5[60] J. O. Wobbrock, L. Findlater, D. Gergle, and J. J. Higgins. The aligned ranktransform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures.In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI ’11, pages 143–146, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. ISBN978-1-4503-0228-9. doi:10.1145/1978942.1978963. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963. → page 27[61] World Health Organization. Burn-out an ”occupational phenomenon”:International classification of diseases, 5 2019.https://www.who.int/mental health/evidence/burn-out/en/. → page 1[62] T. A. Wright, R. Cropanzano, and D. G. Bonett. The moderating role ofemployee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction andjob performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(2):93,2007. → page 4[63] D. Xanthopoulou, A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, and W. B. Schaufeli. Workengagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job andpersonal resources. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology,82(1):183–200, 2009. → page 449Appendix AStudy 1 Supporting MaterialsA.1 Consent Form50September	5,	2018	 	 Page	1	of	2		The	University	of	British	Columbia		Department	of	Computer	Science	201-2366	Main	Mall	Vancouver	BC	Canada	V6T	1Z4	Time	Well	Spent	Study		Principal	Investigator	Joanna	McGrenere,	Professor,	Department	of	Computer	Science,	UBC	(joanna@cs.ubc.ca,	604-827-5201)		Co-Investigators	Hayley	Guillou,	MSc	student,	Department	of	Computer	Science,	UBC	(guillouh@cs.ubc.ca,	431-777-9438)		Thomas	Fritz,	Professor,	Department	of	Informatics,	University	of	Zurich,	Affiliate	Professor,	Department	of	Computer	Science,	UBC	(fritz@cs.ubc.ca,	+41	44635	6732)			Study	Purpose	The	overall	objective	of	this	research	is	to	better	understand	and	improve	wellbeing	at	work.	To	accomplish	this	objective,	we	are	investigating	how	people	feel	about	and	self-evaluate	the	way	they	spend	their	time	during	their	primary	working	hours	of	the	day.	By	understanding	how	professionals	define	and	approach	wellbeing	at	work,	we	will	be	able	to	identify	design	recommendations	and	develop	better	tool	support	for	improving	overall	wellbeing	at	work.			Study	Procedure	This	study	is	a	diary	study	that	will	take	no	longer	than	a	total	of	2	hours	over	the	course	 of	 5	 days.	 The	 study	 is	 composed	 of	 three	 parts:	 (a)	 a	 short	 introduction	session	to	explain	the	study	and	ask	for	consent,	(b)	a	five-day	diary	study,	and	(c)	a	final	survey.	If	you	agree	to	participate,	we	will	ask	you	to	complete	a	short	survey	(approx.	1	minute)	every	work	hour	over	the	course	of	five	work	days	in	which	we	ask	you	about	how	you	spent	your	time	and	how	you	felt	about	it.	In	addition,	we	will	ask	you	to	reflect	about	your	workday	at	the	end	of	each	of	the	five	work	days	(max.	8	minutes	per	day).	 In	the	 final	survey,	we	will	ask	you	questions	about	your	own	characterization	 of	 time	 well	 spent,	 your	 workplace	 environment,	 some	demographics	and	also	have	you	complete	a	standardized	personality	type	test	(max.	30	minutes).				Known	Risks	We	do	not	anticipate	any	significant	risks	for	taking	part	in	this	study.	Also,	you	can	terminate	the	study	at	any	point	in	time	without	providing	any	reason.	September	5,	2018	 	 Page	2	of	2		Reimbursement	Participants	who	complete	the	study	will	receive	compensation	of	$40	CAD	in	their	choice	of	gift	card	(Amazon,	Starbucks,	iTunes).	Participants	can	withdraw	from	the	study	at	any	time	without	a	reason	and	will	receive	a	prorated	reimbursement.		Benefits	of	Participation	Participants	will	get	a	chance	to	reflect	on	how	well	they	spend	their	time	and	their	time	management	patterns	 and	 strategies.	 The	 final	 survey	 includes	questions	 for	standardized	personality-type	inventories;	we	will	send	personal	results	after	the	full	study	is	completed.		Data,	Storage	&	Confidentiality	Your	 identity	 will	 be	 kept	 confidential.	 We	 will	 only	 record	 your	 identifying	information	 if	 you	 want	 to	 participate	 in	 the	 draw	 for	 a	 prize.	 Your	 identifying	information	will	not	be	stored	with	this	data	nor	will	it	be	associated	with	the	data	after	it	has	been	analyzed.			Use	of	the	Data	The	 results	 of	 this	 study	 will	 potentially	 appear	 in	 both	 internal	 and	 external	academic	research	presentations,	theses	and	publications,	such	as	academic	journals	and	conference	proceedings.	No	 identifying	 information	will	be	 included	 in	any	of	these.		Contact	for	information	about	the	study	If	 you	have	any	questions	 about	or	desire	 further	 information	with	 respect	 to	 the	study,	you	may	contact	Hayley	Guillou	(guillouh@cs.ubc.ca),	Dr.	 Joanna	McGrenere	(joanna@cs.ubc.ca),	or	Dr.	Thomas	Fritz	(fritz@cs.ubc.ca).		Who	to	contact	if	you	have	complaints	or	concerns	about	the	study	If	you	have	any	concerns	or	complaints	about	your	rights	as	a	research	participant	and/or	 your	 experiences	 while	 participating	 in	 this	 study,	 contact	 the	 Research	Participant	Complaint	Line	in	the	UBC	Office	of	Research	Ethics	at	604-822-8598	or	if	long	distance	e-mail	RSIL@ors.ubc.ca	or	call	toll	free	1-877-822-8598.		Consent	We	intend	for	your	participation	in	this	project	to	be	pleasant	and	stress-free.	Your	participation	 in	 this	 study	 is	 entirely	 voluntary.	 You	 have	 the	 right	 to	 refuse	 to	participate	in	this	study	and	you	are	free	to	withdraw	your	participation	at	any	point	during	the	study,	without	giving	a	reason	and	without	any	negative	consequence.	Any	information	you	contribute	up	to	your	withdrawal	will	be	retained	and	used	in	this	study,	unless	you	request	otherwise.	By	answering	yes,	you	confirm	that		- You	agree	to	participate	in	the	study	and	had	enough	time	to	make	this	decision,	and	that	- you	are	at	least	18	years	old.	A.2 Hourly Survey53Private Policy Terms of UsePowered by QualtricsTime Well SpentPlease reflect on the time since your last survey, or since the beginning of your workday.  What did you spend this time doing?  ‑ What personal tasks did you do? ‑ Did you take any breaks? What did you do and for how long? ‑ Did you talk to anyone? ‑ What did you work on?How did you spend your time?How do you feel about how you spent your time? (move the gauge to adjust the level of frown or smile on the face)Why do you feel this way? A.3 End of Day Survey55Private Policy Terms of UsePowered by QualtricsTime Well SpentPlease reflect on the time since your last survey, or since the beginning of your workday.  What did you spend this time doing?  ‑ What personal tasks did you do? ‑ Did you take any breaks? What did you do and for how long? ‑ Did you talk to anyone? ‑ What did you work on?How did you spend your time?How do you feel about how you spent your time? (move the gauge to adjust the level of frown or smile on the face)Why do you feel this way? A.4 TWS Survey57DemographicsWhat is your name?What is your occupation and/or field of study?What is your gender?What is your age?Time Well SpentOver the past workweek, you have been reflecting on how you have been spending your time. How would you define"time well spent"?WorkplaceWhat industry do you work in?MaleFemaleOther What is the total number of employees in your company?Where do you work?What is the total number of employees at your location?Generally on a typical work day which of the following do you have the freedom to choose?1‑1920‑4950‑99100‑249250+In (one of) my company's main office(s)In a smaller officeIn the office of another companyIn a co‑working spaceRemotely at homeRemotely (other) In a home office (not remotely)Other 1‑1920‑4950‑99100‑249250+Number of hours worked per dayTime to start workTime to end workNumber of breaks in a dayTime to take breaksLength of breaksTime to take lunchPlease mark the extent to which you agree with the following statements:‑‑Length of lunch break    Stronglydisagree DisagreeSomewhatdisagreeNeitheragree nordisagreeSomewhatagree AgreeStronglyagreeI create my own tasks.   I am given tasks tocomplete.   I am expected tocomplete tasks in acertain order.  I am free to work on anytask throughout the workday.  I use my work computerfor personal tasks.   I am allowed to use mypersonal cell phone at mydesk.  I use my personal cellphone at my desk.       StronglyDisagree DisagreeSomewhatdisagreeNeitheragree nordisagreeSomewhatagree AgreeStronglyagreeMy activity on mycomputer is logged ormonitored.  My employer uses awebsite blocker to blockcertain sites.  My employer can see myonline activity.   My superior can physicallyview my computermonitor during theworkday.  My colleagues canphysically view mycomputer monitor fromtheir desks.  Anyone who enters myworkspace can physicallyview my computermonitor.  ‑‑Susceptibility to DistractionsIn general, in a typical day how distracted do you feel by:Impulsivity SurveyBelow are a number of statements that describe ways in which people act and think. For each statement, pleaseindicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.    StronglyDisagree DisagreeSomewhatdisagreeNeitheragree nordisagreeSomewhatagree AgreeStronglyagreeI often think about howmy activity is monitoredat work.  I change what I'm doing onmy computer dependingon who can see myscreen.       not at all low slightly neutral moderately very extremelysocial media   email   face‑to‑face informalworkplace interactions   notifications   text messaging   phone calls        Agree Strongly Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree StronglyI generally like to seethings through to the end.   My thinking is usuallycareful and purposeful.   When I am in great mood, Itend to get into situationsthat could cause meproblems.  Unfinished tasks reallybother me.   I like to stop and thinkthings over before I dothem.  Big 5 InventoryHere are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you aresomeone who likes to spend time with others?     Agree Strongly Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree StronglyWhen I feel bad, I willoften do things I laterregret in order to makemyself feel better now.       Agree Strongly Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree StronglyOnce I get going onsomething I hate to stop.   I quite enjoy taking risks.   I tend to lose control whenI am in a great mood.   I finish what I start.   I tend to value and followa rational, "sensible"approach to things.  I welcome new andexciting experiences andsensations, even if theyare a little frightening andunconventional.       Agree Strongly Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree StronglyWhen I feel rejected, I willoften say things that I laterregret.  I would like to learn to flyan airplane.   Others are shocked orworried about the things Ido when I am feeling veryexcited.  I would enjoy the sensationof skiing very fast down ahigh mountain slope.  I usually think carefullybefore doing anything.   I tend to act withoutthinking when I am reallyexcited.       Agree Strongly Agree Some Disagree Some Disagree Strongly    DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly1. Is talkative   Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you aresomeone who likes to spend time with others?    DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly2. Tends to find fault withothers   3. Does a thorough job   4. Is depressed, blue   5. Is original, comes upwith new ideas       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly6. Is reserved   7. Is helpful and unselfishwith others   8. Can be somewhatcareless   9. Is relaxed, handlesstress well   10. Is curious about manydifferent things       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly11. Is full of energy   12. Starts quarrels withothers   13. Is a reliable worker   14. Can be tense   15. Is ingenious, a deepthinker       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly16. Generates a lot ofenthusiasm   17. Has a forgiving nature   18. Tends to bedisorganized   19. Worries a lot   20. Has an activeimagination       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly21. Tends to be quiet   Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you aresomeone who likes to spend time with others?    DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly22. Is generally trusting   23. Tends to be lazy   24. Is emotionally stable,not easily upset   25. Is inventive       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly26. Has an assertivepersonality   27. Can be cold and aloof   28. Perseveres until thetask is finished   29. Can be moody   30. Values artistic,aesthetic experiences       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly31. Is sometimes shy,inhibited   32. Is considerate and kindto almost everyone   33. Does things efficiently   34. Remains calm in tensesituations   35. Prefers work that isroutine       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly36. Is outgoing, sociable   37. Is sometimes rude toothers   38. Makes plans andfollows through with them   39. Gets nervous easily   40. Likes to reflect, playwith ideas       DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly41. Has few artisticinterests   Private Policy Terms of UsePowered by Qualtrics    DisagreestronglyDisagree alittleNeither agreenor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly42. Likes to cooperatewith others   43. Is easily distracted   44. Is sophisticated in art,music, or literature   A.5 TWS Definition CodebookThemeSubtheme Example QuotesWhat I work onProgress“making tangible progress towards ob-jectives”Completion“time during which (all or the majorityof) what I intended to reasonably finishwas finished”Long-term goal“I consider time to be managed wellwhen I have finished all the tasks I hadon my to-do list by the end of the day.I create my to-do list based on largerprojects, so that means I’m closer tocompleting my long-term goals every-day.”Short-term goal“I spend well my time if I accomplishwhatever goals I’ve set for the day”Quality of work“providing quality customer service”;“praise from coworkers or managersabout quality or quantity of work ac-complished”How I workPunctuality“Meeting my deadlines and staying ontop of my paperwork.”; “Getting tasksdone in a timely manner”Efficiency“I work as efficiently as planned”;“plan to do things efficiently”; “takingregular breaks to avoid burn-out whichoverall makes my time spent more effi-cient”66Mental Focus“time spent focused and attentive to mywork”How I feelSatisfaction or achievement“when I felt satisfied that I used myabilities adequately”Meaningful and fun“having fun”; “I would define it astime spent on things/tasks that I feel areworth my attention.”Avoidance of guilt“Spending my time in a way that Idon’t feel guilty at the end of the day”How I take care of myselfPhysical health“Accomplishing many tasks, bondingwith co-workers, or getting mid-daybreaks to move and walk”Mental and emotional health“helps me refresh/refocus to workmore efficiently or improve my mentalhealth”Social bonds‘time spent socializing is also enrich-ing, as long as it doesn’t take up toolarge a portion of a workday.”Breaks from work“taking regular breaks”; “getting mid-day breaks to move and walk”; “takingwell-placed breaks”67Appendix BStudy 2 Supporting MaterialsB.1 Consent Form68  UBC Department of CompXter Science ICICS/CS BXilding 201-2366 Main Mall VancoXYer, B.C., V6T 1Z4   TLPe WeOO SSeQW SWXd\ - CRQVeQW FRUP  PULQcLSaO IQYeVWLgaWRU Joanna McGrenere, Professor, Department of CompXter Science, UBC (joanna@cs.Xbc.ca, 604-827-5201)   CR-IQYeVWLgaWRU Ha\le\ GXilloX, MSc stXdent, Department of CompXter Science, UBC (gXilloXh@cs.Xbc.ca, 431-777-9438)  KeYin ChoZ, StXdent, Department of CompXter Science, UBC (keYinc97@cs.Xbc.ca)  Thomas Frit], Professor, Department of Informatics, UniYersit\ of ZXrich, Affiliate Professor, Department of CompXter Science, UBC (frit]@cs.Xbc.ca, +41 44635 6732)  SWXd\ PXUSRVe aQd PURcedXUe The oYerall objectiYe of this research is to better Xnderstand hoZ people define Time Well Spent dXring their primar\ Zorking hoXrs. ​ ​This stXd\ Zill take Xp to a total of appro[imatel\ 4 hoXrs oYer the coXrse of 4 Zeeks. There Zill be three sXrYe\s (at the beginning, 2 Zeeks later, and 4 Zeeks later) asking aboXt satisfaction Zith the Za\ \oXr time is spent at Zork.  Some participants Zill be asked to doZnload and Xse an Android app Zhich Zill proYide hoXrl\ notifications dXring primar\ Zorking hoXrs for e[perience sampling and alloZ the Xser to see a YisXali]ation of their responses. After 4 Zeeks, participants Zill be asked to participate in a 5-15 minXte interYieZ oYer Sk\pe.  KQRZQ RLVNV We do not anticipate an\ significant risks for taking part in this stXd\. Also, \oX can terminate the stXd\ at an\ point in time ZithoXt proYiding an\ reason.  ReLPbXUVePeQW Participants Zho complete the stXd\ Zill receiYe compensation of a $50 gift card. Participants can ZithdraZ from the stXd\ at an\ time ZithoXt a reason and Zill receiYe a prorated reimbXrsement.  BeQefLWV Rf PaUWLcLSaWLRQ Participants Zill get a chance to reflect on hoZ Zell the\ spend their time and their time management patterns and strategies.  DaWa, SWRUage & CRQfLdeQWLaOLW\ YoXr identit\ Zill be kept confidential. YoXr identif\ing information Zill not be stored Zith this data nor Zill it be associated Zith the data after it has been anal\]ed. The resXlts  (H18-01774) ​Phase II Consent Form ± Version 1.1 ± Ma\ 30, 2019 page 1​/2 Zill be made pXblic throXgh scholarl\ pXblications, presentations, and academic theses; hoZeYer, no identif\ing information Zill be inclXded in an\ of these.  CRQWacW fRU LQfRUPaWLRQ abRXW WKe VWXd\ If \oX haYe an\ qXestions aboXt or desire fXrther information Zith respect to the stXd\, \oX ma\ contact Ha\le\ GXilloX (gXilloXh@cs.Xbc.ca), Dr. Joanna McGrenere (joanna@cs.Xbc.ca), or Dr. Thomas Frit] ( ​frit]@cs.Xbc.ca ​).  WKR WR cRQWacW Lf \RX KaYe cRPSOaLQWV RU cRQceUQV abRXW WKe VWXd\ If \oX haYe an\ concerns or complaints aboXt \oXr rights as a research participant and/or \oXr e[periences Zhile participating in this stXd\, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.Xbc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598.  CRQVeQW We intend for \oXr participation in this project to be pleasant and stress-free. YoXr participation in this stXd\ is entirel\ YolXntar\. YoX haYe the right to refXse to participate in this stXd\ and \oX are free to ZithdraZ \oXr participation at an\ point dXring the stXd\, ZithoXt giYing a reason and ZithoXt an\ negatiYe conseqXence. An\ information \oX contribXte Xp to \oXr ZithdraZal Zill be retained and Xsed in this stXd\, Xnless \oX reqXest otherZise.  B\ aQVZeULQg \eV, \RX cRQfLUP WKaW -  YRX agUee WR SaUWLcLSaWe LQ WKe VWXd\ aQd Kad eQRXgK WLPe WR PaNe WKLV decLVLRQ, aQd WKaW -  \RX aUe aW OeaVW 18 \eaUV ROd.   (H18-01774) ​Phase II Consent Form ± Version 1.1 ± Ma\ 30, 2019 page 2​/2 B.2 Initial Survey for Intervention Group71Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that you were working(whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), you likely have a personal senseof how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not your time is wellspent during the work day? In other words, how would you define theconcept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?What is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spent during yourprimary working hours?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allExtremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedWhy?What is your level of awareness of how you spend your workday? I.e. do youfeel aware of what activities you are doing hour-by-hour? What is your level of awareness of how you feel during your workday? I.e. doyou feel aware of what emotions you are feeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of you head, list at least 5 activities that you feel to be spendingyour time well during the workday?Somewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel to be NOTspending your time well during the workday?What tools or techniques have you tried to improve how well you spend timeat work?What tools or techniques do you currently use to improve how well you spendtime at work?​Powered by QualtricsWhat Google account email address will you be using for logging into the appand visualization tool?(this doesn't need to be your personal account, see the instructionsdocument from the email for details)B.3 Initial Survey for Control Group76Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that you were working(whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), you likely have a personal senseof how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not your time is wellspent during the work day? In other words, how would you define theconcept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?What is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spent during yourprimary working hours?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allExtremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedWhy?What is your level of awareness of how you spend your workday? I.e. do youfeel aware of what activities you are doing hour-by-hour? What is your level of awareness of how you feel during your workday? I.e. doyou feel aware of what emotions you are feeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of you head, list at least 5 activities that you feel to be spendingyour time well during the workday?Somewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel to be NOTspending your time well during the workday?What tools or techniques have you tried to improve how well you spend timeat work?What tools or techniques do you currently use to improve how well you spendtime at work?​Powered by QualtricsB.4 Mid Survey for Intervention Group81Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that youwere working (whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), youlikely have a personal sense of how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not yourtime is well spent during the work day? In other words, howwould you define the concept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allWhat is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spentduring your primary working hours?Why?What is your level of awareness of how you spend yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what activities you are doinghour-by-hour? Extremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedWhat is your level of awareness of how you feel during yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what emotions you arefeeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe spending your time well during the workday?Extremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe NOT spending your time well during the workday?Block 1Take a moment to look at the differences between these tworesponse sets.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_tws}Today:${q://QID2/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your definition of Time Well Spent changed in the past2 weeks, if at all? If there has been a change, what hasprompted this change?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be spending your timewell.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_pos}Today:${q://QID7/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be NOT spending yourtime well.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_neg}Today:${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Block 2In this study, we are most interested in learning about how theprocess of reflecting and seeing an overview of the way yourtime is spent helps you. Secondarily, we are interested in gettingfeedback on the tool we provide (the combination of thetracking app and visualization website).By using this process, what did you learn about the way youspend your time, if anything?Was this process of self-reflection on your time at work helpful?What insights did you gain from it?How has the process of using the self-reflection tool made adifference in the way you feel your time is spent, if at all?How useful was the tool?Would you continue to use the tool? Why or why not?Extremely usefulVery usefulModerately usefulSlightly usefulNot at all usefulHow often or how many times did you look at the visualizationwebsite over the 2 week tracking period?What would you like to have seen on the visualization websitethat is not currently possible to see?What improvements would you like to see made to the app andvisualizations?Powered by QualtricsPlease feel free to leave any comments about your experiencewith the app and visualizations below.B.5 Mid Survey for Control Group92Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that youwere working (whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), youlikely have a personal sense of how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not yourtime is well spent during the work day? In other words, howwould you define the concept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allWhat is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spentduring your primary working hours?Why?What is your level of awareness of how you spend yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what activities you are doinghour-by-hour? Extremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedWhat is your level of awareness of how you feel during yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what emotions you arefeeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe spending your time well during the workday?Extremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe NOT spending your time well during the workday?Block 1Take a moment to look at the differences between these tworesponse sets.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_tws}Today:${q://QID2/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your definition of Time Well Spent changed in the past2 weeks, if at all? If there has been a change, what hasprompted this change?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be spending your timewell.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_pos}Today:${q://QID7/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Powered by QualtricsTake a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be NOT spending yourtime well.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_neg}Today:${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?B.6 Final Survey for Intervention Group99Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that youwere working (whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), youlikely have a personal sense of how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not yourtime is well spent during the work day? In other words, howwould you define the concept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allWhat is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spentduring your primary working hours?Why?What is your level of awareness of how you spend yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what activities you are doinghour-by-hour? Extremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedWhat is your level of awareness of how you feel during yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what emotions you arefeeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe spending your time well during the workday?Extremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe NOT spending your time well during the workday?Block 1Take a moment to look at the differences between these tworesponse sets.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_tws}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_tws}Today:${q://QID2/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your definition of Time Well Spent changed in the past2 weeks, if at all? If there has been a change, what hasprompted this change?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be spending your timewell.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_pos}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_pos}Today:${q://QID7/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be NOT spending yourtime well.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_neg}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_neg}Today:${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Block 3Did you continue to use the tracking tool?In this study, we are most interested in learning about how theprocess of reflecting and seeing an overview of the way yourtime is spent helps you. Secondarily, we are interested in gettingfeedback on the tool we provide (the combination of thetracking app and visualization website).By using this process, what did you learn about the way youYesNospend your time, if anything?Was this process of self-reflection on your time at work helpful?What insights did you gain from it?How has the process of using the self-reflection tool made adifference in the way you feel your time is spent, if at all?How useful was the tool?How often or how many times did you look at the visualizationwebsite over the last 2 weeks?What would you like to have seen on the visualization websitethat is not currently possible to see?What improvements would you like to see made to the app andExtremely usefulVery usefulModerately usefulSlightly usefulNot at all usefulvisualizations?Please feel free to leave any comments about your experiencewith the app and visualizations below.During the last two weeks have you used any other timemanagement softwares or techniques?Block 2Powered by QualtricsHow old are you?What is your gender?B.7 Final Survey for Control Group111Default Question BlockWhen taking a moment to reflect on a period of time that youwere working (whether it’s the past hour or the whole day), youlikely have a personal sense of how well you spent that time.  What are your personal criteria for defining whether or not yourtime is well spent during the work day? In other words, howwould you define the concept of “Time Well Spent”?How well do you generally spend your time at work?Extremely wellVery wellModerately wellSlightly wellNot well at allWhat is your level of satisfaction with how your time is spentduring your primary working hours?Why?What is your level of awareness of how you spend yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what activities you are doinghour-by-hour? Extremely satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfiedWhat is your level of awareness of how you feel during yourworkday? I.e. do you feel aware of what emotions you arefeeling hour-by-hour?Off the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe spending your time well during the workday?Extremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllExtremely AwareVery AwareModerately AwareSlightly AwareNot Aware At AllOff the top of your head, list at least 5 activities that you feel tobe NOT spending your time well during the workday?Block 1Take a moment to look at the differences between these tworesponse sets.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_tws}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_tws}Today:${q://QID2/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your definition of Time Well Spent changed in the past2 weeks, if at all? If there has been a change, what hasprompted this change?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be spending your timewell.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_pos}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_pos}Today:${q://QID7/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Take a moment to look at the differences between these twolists of activities that you consider to be NOT spending yourtime well.Initial Survey:${e://Field/init_neg}Mid-Study Survey:${e://Field/mid_neg}Today:${q://QID8/ChoiceTextEntryValue}How has your list of activities changed in the past 2 weeks, if atall? If there has been a change, what has prompted thischange?Powered by QualtricsBlock 2How old are you?What is your gender?

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0389624/manifest

Comment

Related Items