Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 637–653 | Cite as

You’ve got email! Does it really matter to process emails now or later?

  • Ashish GuptaEmail author
  • Ramesh Sharda
  • Robert A. Greve


Email consumes as much as a quarter of knowledge workers’ time in organizations today. Almost a necessity for communication, email does interrupt a worker’s other main tasks and ultimately leads to information overload. Though issues such as spam, email filtering and archiving have received much attention from industry and academia, the critical problem of the timing of email processing has not been studied much. It is common for many knowledge workers to check and respond to their email almost continuously. Though some emails may require very quick responses, checking emails almost continuously may lead to interruptions in regular knowledge work. Managing email processing can make a significant difference in an organization’s productivity. Previous research on this topic suggests that perhaps the best way to minimize the effect of interruptions is to process email frequently for example, every 45 min. In this study, we focus on studying email response timing approaches to optimize the communication times and yet reduce the interruptive effects. We investigate previous recommendations by performing a two-phase study involving rigorous simulation experiments. Models were developed for identifying efficient and effective email processing policies by comparing various ways to reduce interruptions for different types of knowledge workers. In contrast to earlier research findings, results indicate that significant productivity improvements could be achieved through the use of some email processing policies while helping attain a balance between email response time and task completion time. Findings also suggest that the best policy may be to respond to email two to four times a day instead of every 45 min or continuously, as is common with many knowledge workers. We conclude by presenting many research opportunities for analytical and organizational IS researchers.


Email management Interruption Performance Simulation modeling 


  1. American Management Association. 2004. Workplace email and instant messaging survey. AMA Research. URL:
  2. Axelrod, R. (2003). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Japanese Journal for Management Information System, 12(3), 1–19. Special Issue: Agent-Based Modeling.Google Scholar
  3. Berghal, H. (1997). Email—the good, the bad and the ugly. Communications of the ACM, 40(4), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chwif, L., Barretto, M., & Paul, R. (2000). On simulation model complexity. In J. A. Jones, R. R. Barton, K. Kang & P. A. Fishwick (eds.), Proceedings of 32nd Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, Florida (pp. 449–454).Google Scholar
  5. Corragio, L. (1990). Deleterious effects of intermittent interruptions on the task performance of knowledge workers: A laboratory investigation. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, U. of Arizona.Google Scholar
  6. Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks. In Extended Abstracts of CHI ’2000, Human Factors in Computing Systems, (The Hague, April 1–6, 2000), ACM press, 99–100.Google Scholar
  7. Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In Paris, C., Ozkan, N., Howard, S. and Lu, S. (eds.), OZCHI 2000 Conference Proceedings, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 4–8, pp. 356–361.Google Scholar
  8. Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2000). Getting the attention you need. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 119–126.Google Scholar
  9. Denning, P. (1982). Electronic junk. Communications of the ACM, 25(3), 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Paolo, E. A., Noble, J., & Bullock, S. (2000). Simulation models as opaque thought experiments. In: M. A. Bedau, J. S. McCaskill, N. H. Packard & S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial Life VII: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 497–506). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ducheneaut, N., & Bellotti, V. (2001). E-mail as habitat. Interactions, 8(5), 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duchenaut, N., & Watts, L. (2005). In search of coherence: a review of email research. HCI Journal, 20(1, 2) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  13. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Keys to success in West Germany, France and the United States. Yarmouth: Intercultural.Google Scholar
  14. Hans-Joachim, M., Karsten, S., Florin, A., & Heinz, H. (2001). Computer simulation as a method of further developing a theory: simulating the elaboration likelihood model. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Her, C., & Hwang, S. (1989). Application of queuing theory to quantify information workload in supervisory control systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson, T., Dawson, R., & Wilson, D. (2001). The cost of email interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, T., Dawson, R., & Wilson, D. (2003). Understanding email interaction increases organizational productivity. Communications of the ACM, 46(8), 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jett, Q. R., & George, J. (2003). Work interrupted: a closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management, 28(3), 494–507.Google Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Kerr, B., & Wilcox, E. M. (2004). Designing remail: reinventing the email client through innovation and integration. CHI 2004, 24–29.Google Scholar
  21. Markus, M. L. (1994). Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 63–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perlow, L. (1999). The time famine: towards a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peschl, M. E., & Scheutz, M. (2001). Explicating the epistemological role of simulation in the development of theories of cognition. Proceedings of the seventh colloquium on Cognitive Science ICCS-01, 274–280.Google Scholar
  25. Sargent, R. G. (2003). Verification and validation of simulation models. In: S. Chick, P. J. Sánchez, D. Ferrin & D. J. Morrice (eds.), Proceedings of 2003 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 37–48).Google Scholar
  26. Speier, C., Valacich, J., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision-making: an information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 623–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Te’eni, D. (2001). Review: a cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 251–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 583–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Venolia, G., Dabbish, L., Cadiz, J. J., & Gupta, A. (2001). Supporting email workflow. Microsoft Research Tech Report MSR-TR-2001-88.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, R. (2004). A grim reaper: the curse of email. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), iii–xiii.Google Scholar
  32. Welch, P. D. (1983). The statistical analysis of simulation results. In S. S. Lavenberg (Ed.), The computer performance modeling handbook. NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Whittaker, S., Bellotti, V., & Moody, P. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on revisiting and reinventing email. HCI Journal, 20(1–2) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  34. Winsberg, E. (2003). Simulated experiments: methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonova, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessMinnesota State University MoorheadMoorheadUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management Science and Information Systems, Spears School of BusinessOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Meinders School of BusinessOklahoma City UniversityOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations