W
wylo

Resources

The reading room
for the hidden tax on focus.

Every claim WYLO makes started as a question: how long does it really take to get back? What does that cost? Who pays it? This page is where we show our working - the studies we lean on, the stories clients have shared, the answers we give most often, and the arithmetic behind the numbers. Pick a tile to jump straight in, or search.

FAQs

Plain answers to the questions people ask before, during and after a trial.

Jump to section

Research

The field studies and cognitive science behind every number we quote, with a full reference list.

Jump to section

Case Studies

Anonymised accounts of how organisations turned aggregate signal into better decisions.

Jump to section

Calculator

How we price a FACE, how we reach £500K+, and a calculator for your own numbers.

Jump to section

FAQs

Questions, answered plainly.

Can't find what you need? Contact us or email support@usewylo.com.

Research

The science behind the numbers.

Four statistics carry most of WYLO's argument. Each is drawn from peer-reviewed field or laboratory work, summarised here in plain language with the original citation.

01

23 - 55 Mins

Average time to return to a task after interruption or diversion

In a field study of information workers, Mark, Gudith and Klocke measured an average of 23 minutes 15 seconds to return to an interrupted task. Later field work on complex knowledge work and WYLO's own pilots place the upper bound closer to 55 minutes when the diversion involves a change of context, tool or person.

Mark, G., Gudith, D. & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. CHI '08, ACM, 107-110.

02

27%

of suspended tasks can result in 2Hrs+ of resumption time

Iqbal and Horvitz instrumented the desktops of knowledge workers and followed what happened after an email or instant-message alert. 27% of suspended tasks were not resumed for more than two hours, and workers often visited several other applications before returning to the original task.

Iqbal, S.T. & Horvitz, E. (2007). Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions. CHI '07, ACM, 677-686.

03

40%

Of productive time can be lost to switching costs

Laboratory studies of task switching show that every switch carries a measurable 'switch cost' in time and accuracy. The American Psychological Association summarises the body of work by noting that even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone's productive time.

Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E. & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.

04

£500K+

Can be lost to task resumption time in a firm of 100+ employees

A fully-loaded cost of £50,000 per employee over 220 working days of 7.5 hours is roughly £30 per hour. Two disruptive interruptions a day, each costing ~23 minutes of recovery, is about 169 hours a year, or ~£5,100 per person. Across 100 employees that is ~£510,000, before counting the interruptions most teams actually experience.

WYLO estimate. Earnings reference: ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2024; recovery time from Mark et al. (2008).

References

  1. Mark, G., Gudith, D. & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. CHI '08 Proceedings, ACM, 107-110.
  2. Iqbal, S.T. & Horvitz, E. (2007). Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions. CHI '07 Proceedings, ACM, 677-686.
  3. Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E. & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.
  4. González, V.M. & Mark, G. (2004). 'Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness': managing multiple working spheres. CHI '04 Proceedings, ACM, 113-120.
  5. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z.J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165-218.
  6. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140.
  7. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
  8. Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65-94.
  9. Hoekzema, E. et al. (2017). Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 20(2), 287-296.
  10. Greendale, G.A. et al. (2009). Effects of the menopause transition and hormone use on cognitive performance: the SWAN cognition study. Neurology, 72(21), 1850-1857.
  11. Vitaliano, P.P., Zhang, J. & Scanlan, J.M. (2003). Is caregiving hazardous to one's physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 946-972.
  12. Bernstein, E.S. & Turban, S. (2018). The impact of the 'open' workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373(1753).
  13. Junco, R. & Cotten, S.R. (2012). No A 4 U: the relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.
  14. Office for National Statistics (2024). Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.

Case studies

From aggregate signal to better decisions.

The pattern is consistent: leadership finally has an honest measure of the cost of interruption, and because it was collected without surveillance, everyone in the room trusts it. Here is what clients have done with it so far.

Anonymised case study

A 230-person professional services firm, UK

Challenge
Delivery teams were missing internal deadlines despite full calendars. Leadership suspected under-resourcing but had no evidence of where the day was breaking.
What WYLO showed
Aggregated WYLO data showed interruption hotspots clustered around two hand-off points and a daily stand-up that routinely overran, costing an estimated 38 refocus minutes per person per day.
Outcome
The stand-up was restructured, one hand-off was automated and a coordinator role was added. Refocus cost fell 31% in the following quarter.

Anonymised case study

A 600-employee financial services group, EU

Challenge
The board was deciding between a hybrid and fully remote model and wanted to understand the focus risk before committing.
What WYLO showed
A 10-week WYLO pilot across three departments showed which teams' focus depended on in-person proximity and which improved remotely - with no individual exposed.
Outcome
The group adopted a department-specific hybrid model instead of a blanket policy, avoiding an estimated seven-figure cost in office churn and productivity loss.

Anonymised case study

A 250-person SaaS scale-up, Ireland

Challenge
Quarterly recognition was based on manager anecdote, which several teams felt was inconsistent.
What WYLO showed
WYLO's roll-up view surfaced two departments with sustained improvements in protected focus and falling refocus cost over two quarters.
Outcome
Recognition and a discretionary budget were awarded on evidence. Employee survey scores on fairness rose 14 points.

Anonymised case study

A 80-person retailer's head office, UK

Challenge
HR wanted an early-warning signal for overload that employees would actually accept on their machines.
What WYLO showed
With employees owning their individual data, several used their own WYLO trends to request support early; anonymised aggregates flagged one function drifting into overload.
Outcome
Two support interventions landed before attrition; sick-leave in the flagged function fell in the next half-year.

Anonymised case study

A mid-size law firm, 90 fee-earners, UK

Challenge
Clients were challenging invoices, questioning whether billed hours reflected time genuinely spent on their matters.
What WYLO showed
Fee-earners dedicated specific days to specific client matter, and voluntarily used WYLO's derived focus record to evidence time on the matters.
Outcome
Billing disputes fell materially and the firm now cites revenue integrity as a differentiator in pitches.

Anonymised case study

A 150-person public-sector body, EU

Challenge
A works council would not approve any productivity tool that resembled monitoring.
What WYLO showed
WYLO's derived-signal, one-way-hashed model with tier floors was reviewed by the DPO and works council and approved as non-surveillance.
Outcome
Rollout completed across all departments with 92% voluntary opt-in to the individual dashboard.

Case studies are anonymised composites drawn from client engagements and pilots; figures are client-reported. References protected by NDA.

Calculator

What a FACE costs, and how we get to £500K+.

A FACE (Focus or Attention Changing Event) is any drop-in, ping, meeting or detour that pulls you off a priority task. Field research puts full re-engagement after one at ~23 minutes (Mark, Gudith & Klocke, 2008).

Take a fully-loaded employee cost of £50,000 per year, 220 working days of 7.5 hours, and you get about £30 per hour. Two disruptive FACEs a day is 46 minutes of recovery daily, roughly 169 hours a year, or ~£5,100 per person. Across 100 employees that is ~£510,000. Most teams see far more than two, which is why we write "500K+".

Your own number depends on salaries, hours and headcount. Run it below.

Your Individual Numbers

Your inputs

Figures serve as an illustrative estimate.

Worked out for you

Hourly Rate

£30.30

Working Hrs. · per Yr

1,650

Avg. Off-Focus Time · Hrs per Yr

169

Total Off-Focus Cost

£5,121.21

per year

Total Refocus Cost

£276.00per year

See what's included

Return On Investment

£2,924.76

per year
35%62.5% effectiveness90%

Share your numbers

Start Free Trial14 days, no card

Cookie preferences

We use cookies to keep WYLO running. You choose what's optional. Compliant with GDPR & ePrivacy.