Skip to main content

How much will you remember?

There is a commonly passed around "stat" that, according to a blog post I recently read, isn't true. You've probably seen it or heard it.

It is said that people remember:
  • 10% of what they read
  • 20% of what they hear
  • 30% of what they see
  • 50% of what they see and hear
  • 70% of what they write and say
  • 90% of what they say as they do

The blog author says:
Quite where these numbers come from is a mystery to many, and indeed it is difficult to understand what 90% retention actually means… 90% of what for how long? As a model it looks and on first thought appears to be credible, however as many of us will know some people have almost 100% retention for a considerable period of time if they read something, others teach others from a structure or procedure which they themselves do not understand!
Thanks, RapidBI, for pointing out this common misconception!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hammers and Nails: Technology Push Design

"We need to refine our requirements first, before we look at tools." This is a common phrase that I hear. While I sympathize with the sentiment, I think it is frequently wasteful. I suspect that we'd get to the right requirements faster by looking at tools already available in a given problem space. Pushing the concept further, is it foolish to find a cool technology and then look for ways that that technology can apply to current problem spaces?  What if you don't even recognize you have a problem space? Without a constant search and openness, we'll miss many serendipitous opportunities. Here is BYU professor Larry Howell discussing this issue. I often enjoy doing something ... that is sometimes controversial. In this approach, rather than starting with a need, you start with a new technology and you search to identify a need that it can fulfill. This second more controversial approach is called "technology push design."   You can imagine t

The "True Cost" Phantom in Project Cost Tracking

I want to know if I should wear a coat when I go out the door on an unpredictable spring morning. The temperature from the weather app on my phone isn't going to match exactly the temperature just outside my front door, but it will be close enough to make the decision. If the question at hand is whether or not I should wear a coat, it would be a costly mistake to set up an elaborate system of thermometers around my property to try increase the precision of my measurement of the temperature. The added expense wouldn't yield any better decisions about whether to wear a coat, so why bother? We are interested in tracking the relative costs of the various projects we undertake in our organization. We must admit up front that we will never be able to measure the precise cost of each of our projects. Consider the following things you could include in the "true cost" measurement of a project. Where will you draw the line? An engineer reads an article on the bus that give

Process Ain't a Post-It

Some ITIL advocates insist that having a good process is separate from having a good tool. "If the process is right, you can do it on a post-it note. Putting it in the tool will speed things up, but it won't fundamentally change the nature of the process." This is rubbish. It may be true for small scale processes, but technology automation can open up new process possibilities that just wouldn't be possible without a technology assist. I think that we should plan our processes with a tool in mind that can accomplish the task. Think of a Service Catalog that gives an executive insight into the costs of the things he orders. He can dynamically scale up or down his order or services to meet his projected needs. He can tweak variables and make decisions because of the power of the tool. It gives him a visualization that simply wouldn't be available in a paper-based process. The NewScale demonstration (a prominent Service Catalog provider) really drove this point