Experimenting with a New System - Day 2. Disaster!
Monday, November 30, 2020 at 22:52 The first day of the system I described yesterday went extremely well, as I described in the update at the end of the post.
Unfortunately today (Day 2) I discovered the logical flaw in the system, which I should have spotted before I started.
The flaw is that on Day 1, the first task on the list is a random task. It might be any degree of difficulty. The one I started with yesterday was an easy task. So my first pass through the list consisted of easy tasks.
But when I started on Day 2, the first task on the list was far from easy. The reason is that the day before I’d cleared out all the easy tasks at the front of the list, so it was bound to be quite difficult. And indeed it was one I was resisting quite a bit.
That meant that when I started on my first pass through the list today I found that I was doing nearly every task on the list. So instead of the fast easy passes I did the day before, I was labouring through the entire list and by the end of the working day hadn’t even completed one pass.
Back to the drawing board!
Reader Comments (20)
- keep going - I'm not sure if two days is enough of a test. It might change over time, don't forget about little and often. I'm wondering if even though you didn't get through the list, I bet you got a lot done!
- or, maybe use the newly completed task as the starting point for moving forward in the list (go through the list faster)?
- or, use a different algorithm, like "standing out" instead?
Is deleting the first task an option? In your previous systems, deletion was always an option, but it seems that option could change the dynamics here significantly.
<< I haven't found that problem yet >>
I'll be interested to know if you manage to avoid it.
<< keep going - I'm not sure if two days is enough of a test. It might change over time, don't forget about little and often.>>
True.
<< I'm wondering if even though you didn't get through the list, I bet you got a lot done! >>
I did get a lot done, but it was basically doing nearly every task on the list in the order that it was written. That's not a bad system if you're not worried about urgency, but it's the opposite of what I was aiming for!
<< or, maybe use the newly completed task as the starting point for moving forward in the list (go through the list faster)? >>
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
<< use a different algorithm, like "standing out" instead? >>
That sounds identical to "Simple Scanning".
<< I suppose I would expect that first task to become more and more attractive as working through my list becomes more burdensome, eventually prompting me to take action on the first task. >>
The first task gets actioned automatically after the end of the list is reached. Then the second undone task takes over as the standard of comparison.
<< Is deleting the first task an option? In your previous systems, deletion was always an option, but it seems that option could change the dynamics here significantly. >>
That really doesn't solve anything. The problem is not that I'm reluctant to do the first task. It's that the bar keeps rising until every task on the list passes the test as to whether I should do it or not on the next pass. It's obvious that will happen, and I really should have realised that before I started trialling the system.
Here's what I was thinking: instead of going back to the first task after the completion of a given task, you continued forward, using the task you just completed as the new "x", a new first task on which you base your decisions (instead of the very first task on your list). Does that make sense?
<< Here's what I was thinking: instead of going back to the first task after the completion of a given task, you continued forward, using the task you just completed as the new "x", a new first task on which you base your decisions (instead of the very first task on your list) >>
Hmm...
I think you might have something there.
At first glance asking oneself "What do I want to do before I do the task I've just done?" doesn't make a great deal of sense, but on second thoughts I can see that it would result in a diminishing amount of resistance as one worked through the list. That is a good thing because it's like riding your bike downhill.
So I'm going to give it a try. My provisional rules will be:
1. Do the first task on the list.
2. Scan the list, while asking the question "What am I resisting less than [name of the task you've just done]?"
3. When you've found a task that fits the question, do it and then continue scanning as in 2.
4. When you reach the end of the list, go back to the beginning of the list and repeat 1-4.
You might like to try it as well and then we can compare experiences. The main problem I foresee is that the first task will get harder on each pass. I'll see how it goes.
I was thinking of splitting all the tasks into blocks of 10. i.e. simply count and draw a line under every10 tasks. Then in each block of 10 dot just one of the most urgent in that group.
Then clear all those dotted task first and repeat the review process.
That should have the effect of working to urgency all the time and making it much easier to compare the tasks for urgency in a smaller group.
Any comments welcome on improvements etc.
<< I was thinking of splitting all the tasks into blocks of 10. i.e. simply count and draw a line under every10 tasks. Then in each block of 10 dot just one of the most urgent in that group. >>
I had thought of trying that myself, but haven't yet. It could work very well, I think.
It's similar to one - which I have tried out - in which I divided the list into blocks of ten and then circled round each block until no tasks stood out. Sort of like a short page version of Autofocus, except that on each pass I re-divided the list into "pages" of 10s.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2020/3/25/ten-tasks.html
It actually worked extremely well except that the length of time it took to make each pass meant it was bad at dealing with urgent tasks if I wasn't near the end of the list.
I can't work out from your description whether you are intending to re-divide the list after each pass into blocks of 10 or not. My advice would be that you should, for two reasons:
1. If you don't re-divide you will end up taking much longer to get through the list on each pass.
2. The beginning of the list will become full of difficult tasks, and you will have no choice but to do all of them in order one after the other.
Let us know how you get on. I might take the opportunity to try it myself.
I continue from where I left off the previous day.
<< Let us know how you get on. I might take the opportunity to try it myself. >>
Yes, interesting - I ended up clearing loads of quick & easy tasks in each of those blocks of 10. Plus doing the really urgent tasks. I feel good as I cleared loads.
I think what I have learned is I had a strong urge to clear tasks in that way. The block of 10 gives a good focus and I felt very calm and under control. So I suppose it is like simple scanning but with "standing out" to be picking the urgent and quick/easy tasks.
So you ended up doing something similar to what is described in my Ten-Tasks blog post which I linked to above?
If you keep at it, you will find that the tasks in the early groups of 10 get more and more serious as you weed the easy ones out.
I've been using it today and have been getting on with it so well that I think I will continue with it for the time being.
I'm trying to put the thoughts of difficult tasks out of my mind and treat them all as easy.
I do have a habit of deferring tasks they look like they will take up quite a bit of time. However, this block of 10 might help that as I can do just 1 long task in each block and move onto another to clear some shorter tasks and still feel productive.
Good so far. But as always any new system seems to be good to start with and the cracks appear and then it is on to a new shiny system. I seem to think so much about what system will get everything done but really it is as simple as available time being larger than time to complete tasks coming in. Sadly at the moment I have no way to reduce commitments so I have to run with a backlog until next year.
I would like some sort of automated system so I don't have to think too much about what tasks to pick.
Nuntym’s version (same as Mark’s?): http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2619857
Yes, I remember the "do the first task on each pass" system, and I remember that it worked quite well. But I was aiming for something a bit different here. I was trying to take advantage of "structured procrastination" as described in the John Perry article which I linked to, http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/
I call this method "skiing." It uses a long list, with each day's date listed.
1. With your long list, decide which slope you want to tackle first and start there. Examples of slopes "Today, Yesterday, top of the list, etc.
2. Do the first task on the slope
3. Ski downward by doing any task that is "easier" than the first task on the slope. When you get to the bottom of the slope, pick a new (or the same) slope to ski.
Notes:
I try not to look at what the first task is to pick the slope, instead I look at my calendar. If I appointments that need preps, or deadlines means I will likely pick today as my first slope. Otherwise, I will start with wither yesterday or the beginning of the list.
I try to go with what is "easier" but sometimes end up with what is more engaging or important, etc. I try to catch myself as I think I work better if I am more quickly skiing down the slope and do more runs during the work session
If the first task on the slope is really hard, or half-baked or if I am worried about more urgent tasks down below, I "force" myself to do a minimum of 5 minutes on it. That has been working really well to make progress on stuck tasks or ones I have been avoiding.
And finally, note I know nothing about skiing (I went twice in my life and am lucky I did not break anything) so apologies if my metaphor does not hold up.
Thanks for this. I'm trying it out at present with a short single list.
So far it works great. Early days yet though - I'll report back once I've given it a better trial.