Get It Right and Keep It Right (Revised Instructions)
Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 10:43 This is an extensive re-write of the previous post, which many readers were having difficulty understanding. Even I wasn’t quite sure what I meant in places!
I hope this will be clearer. I’ve left the previous instructions in place for comparison purposes only.
——-
Here’s a new system which can be used either with or without the New Question. It comes with the warning that I haven’t yet tested it out fully myself.
The nearest of my systems which it resembles is Spinning Plates, but this new system is a bit more flexible.
As the title suggests, the idea is to take one subject in turn, get it up and running and then carry out maintenance to make sure it stays that way.
Summary:
It consists of a task list as in Simple Scanning which you work on in exactly the same way as in Simple Scanning except that you can only add a task to the list each time you go back to the beginning of the list. You start off with two tasks and build up the list gradually.
This is how it works:
- Start with two tasks. They can be any tasks, but it would be best to go for continuing tasks which require regular attention, e.g. email, paper, etc.
- Do some work on the first task, cross out and re-enter.
- Do some work on the second task, cross out and re-enter.
- Add another task and, without working on it yet, go back to the beginning of the list and repeat the process.
What you are doing is building up a list of everything you want, need, or have to do by adding one task each time you get through the list. Gradually the list will extend to all your work. The slow build-up allows you to get each subject completely under control and then keep it that way.
Example:
Start the list with two tasks:
Tidy Desk
Do them both and re-enter them :
Tidy Desk
Tidy Desk
Add another task and go back to the beginning of the list:
Tidy Desk
Tidy Desk
Draft Report
Contine rotating round the list, adding one task each time you go back to the beginning.
You can continue adding new tasks one at a time until the system tells you that you are trying to do too much by getting slower and slower. When it gets too slow to be practical, you can take one or both of the following actions:
- Weed the list of any projects or tasks which you realise are taking up more time than they are worth.
- Start a new list and build it up again gradually.
Reader Comments (51)
When you say you work the list as in simple scanning, does that mean you rotate around the list (once it is built up) selecting tasks in an order you choose, but with the stipulation that when you get to the bottom of the list you must take action on the first task at the top "Add another task and go back to the beginning of the list," or are you just saying that you go to the top and begin scanning again, doing tasks in any order.
IF you must take action on the first item, then that aspect is similar to the "skiing" system I wrote about earlier, which I find to be a great way of "choosing": a task I am resisting.
"It consists of a task list as in Simple Scanning which you work on in exactly the same way as in Simple Scanning except that you can only add a task to the list each time you go back to the beginning of the list. You start off with two tasks and build up the list gradually."
I thought with simple scanning you read the list and act when something "stands out."
<< Mechanically it seems to work best going bottom to top, rewrite at bottom. When you reach the top start again at bottom, add a new item, ignore the new item until the next round and continue up. >>
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Do you mean the list is written from the top of the page downwards, but you scan backwards towards the beginning of the list? Or do you mean the list is written from the bottom of the page upwards, but then what does "re-write at bottom" mean? Either way I don't understand why you think this would work better.
<< What is the relation to Simple Scanning? >>
In Simple Scanning you go round and round the list actioning those tasks which stand out. When you've actioned a task, you either delete it or re-enter it at the end of the list, depending on whether further work is needed. New tasks can be added at the end of the list at any time.
Now imagine Simple Scanning without that last sentence. Nothing can be added to the list once it's been drawn up. You have a closed list. This would be an efficient way of dealing with a check list or shopping list or a collection of minor projects which you wanted to get out of the way.
Now imagine the closed list I have just described with the rule that one task is added every time you pass through the list. You would have a list very similar to a Simple Scanning list but without the uncontrolled growth that tends to take place with Simple Scanning.
Now imagine the list I've just described with the rule that you must start with only two tasks. This means that you can concentrate on being totally up-to-date while the list grows only at a closely controlled rate. Even when the list has grown quite large the fact that you have kept up-to-date means that you can keep up-to-date relatively easily.
This last one I've described is the Get it Right - Keep it Right system.
The scanning is exactly the same as in Simple Scanning. That is to say you scan each task in order and take action on the ones that stand out.
But because of the way the list has been built up, it would be natural that the ones that needed some work would stand out and the ones that didn't wouldn't.
Oh, that is totally different from what I read of the other post. As I read it, you do ALL the tasks each time, unless you can't. Since that's not what you meant, my previous post is meaningless.
This is an interesting take on simple scanning, and I think it might address my main issues with long lists that I've had, so I'm willing to give this one a try!
<< As I read it, you do ALL the tasks each time, unless you can't. >>
Well, if you are trying to get it right and keep it right, then it comes to much the same thing. The main area of choice is whether you do a task more than once on the same pass. That is something that is left to your intuition.
I have a task "do email." When I "do email" I respond to the quick and/or urgent items and the ones that I do later I add to my list.
Would I add them to this list, thus violating the elegant add one task at the end when you get to the end rule, do I add them to a feeder list I can refer to when it is time to add another to the list, or do I try to remember them for when I get to the end of the list?
Another option is to keep do email as the last item on the list, and only do email until I get the next item, then go to the start of the list and repeat until my inbox is cleared, then go on adding tasks in the usual manner.
In your original instructions, under Points to Note, you wrote:
<There is a presumption that every task should be worked on each time you come to it. However if there is no work to be done or the conditions are not right, this rule can be ignored.>.
When the revised instructions recommended scanning through the list for any task that “stands out”, as per Simple Scanning, I thought the above point had been dropped from the revised version.
However, since the whole principle of the new system is getting it right and keeping it right, hopefully every (eligible) task will indeed “stand out” on every scan, rather than being skipped over in favour of a task further down the list. Or is there a reason why “standing out” is sometimes better than the presumption of working every task each time you come to it?
Thanks for your help.
I have a question : when you have finished for example your initial two tasks, it means that at a moment your list can have only one task (a new one created) ? Or do you add two new tasks in that case ?
<< I have a task "do email." When I "do email" I respond to the quick and/or urgent items and the ones that I do later I add to my list. >>
I've never seen much point in adding emails to my list, when they are already laid out neatly in a list for me in my email client.
When the task "Do Email" comes up, I circulate in Simple Scanning style through the emails. If I don't finish them all by the end of the day, then I transfer what is left into a folder called Email Backlog. I have "Email Backlog" as a second email task on my list. This second list is a closed list, i.e. I don't put anymore email into it until I have dealt with every email.
<< is there a reason why “standing out” is sometimes better than the presumption of working every task each time you come to it? >>
Yes, see the concurrent discussion at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2779885#post2779887
It makes no difference whether you add one task or two tasks. The result will be the same. Personally in those circumstances I'd probably go for two.
"STart RIght, Keep Current" could be abbreviated as StRiKC (pronounced "strike").
Regardless of the name, it's an interesting approach. I like that there is a built-in increasing negative feedback that you're getting overwhelmed when it starts to bog down (rather than the typical overcommitment that seems all too common, then folks wonder why they can't get everything done in time).
<< I like that there is a built-in increasing negative feedback that you're getting overwhelmed >>
Yes, I'm beginning to think that that's its most useful feature.
<< I like Spinning Plates and it's format, so I am not sure if this new format adds to the experience, >>
It is slightly different from Spinning Plates. In Spinning Plates the tasks are dealt with in the same order every pass, whether or not any actual action is taken, and each task is only dealt with once a pass.
In Get It Right & Keep It Right, the tasks are dealt with according to Simple Scanning rules. That is that if no action is taken on a task it is not crossed out and re-entered but left in the same position. More importantly, if a task is re-entered it may be done more than once on a single pass. That makes the system more flexible than Spinning Plates, in which you have to go through the entire list again before you can take more action on a task.
But I can't see how to even start with a method like this. Stuff comes at me in bursts -- whether it's coming from within or without. When the stuff comes, I need to capture it; otherwise, I have found through experience that I will lose it.
So I just can't imagine how to follow the rule of adding only one thing at a time after each pass through the list.
So it makes me really curious how other people think and process the flow of things in their life, who *are* able to follow this rule. How do you manage to throttle the flow of ideas and of demands on your time and attention so that you can just add one thing at a time?
<< How do you manage to throttle the flow of ideas and of demands on your time and attention so that you can just add one thing at a time? >>
You can only DO one thing at a time, can't you? I mean however much gets thrown at you, you can only actually handle one thing at a time. The question is how you sift everything you have, so that you can decide what you are actually going to do right now.
Your problem as I understand it is that you have always had a vast amount of tasks on your list - and it's always been physically impossible for you to do them all. This method forces you to concentrate on what is really important to you. And, yes, a lot of choices have to be made.
What I am finding using this method is that stuff which I've been neglecting for ages has suddenly started to move. I am getting more, not less, work done.
Same here!
“When the stuff comes, I need to capture it; otherwise, I have found through experience that I will lose it.”
It might be possible to keep a separate list of things you don’t want to lose, but don’t work off that list. Maybe check it when you’re looking for an option of what to put on the list. I do have a mind dump list of certain things that were in my head (from before this system) although I haven’t drawn from it for this system at all yet.
I thing I’ve done and I think I slightly messed up the system by doing it is to add more than one thing because I didn’t want to lose it. (e.g. “taxes” when I realized it’s February and I could be working on them now; on the one hand, it got me to start getting the papers together already and I could probably even finish them today or later this week. On the other I can feel the balance tip away from “Keeping it right” for the rest of the list when I do that.)
I just kind of realized in retrospect that adding more stuff to a list than you can keep up with makes it a lot harder for things to stand out as being ready to be done. That’s why it worked so well when it was just stuff I am keeping up with. Also, it’s the purpose behind the list of “get it right” and “keep it right” that makes things stand out a lot more (and initially when I thought you should always do as much as makes sense on it when you reach a task in the list).
Another random point that I think makes sense is it still works with additional systems like reminders/calendar for things you want to do at specific times.
[I've amended your post - MF]
Given that I've done mostly no-list systems lately and that long lists have always been a struggle for me, I think I can answer this a bit from my perspective.
In general, I've always found that having lots of things on a list tends to reduce my productivity significantly. I think this has to do with maximizing throughput by reducing switching overheads and decision costs (also called contention).
What seems to be working best for me, and has been working best, is to alter systems significantly to prevent the need for synchronous task management. In other words, I craft my environment to limit or prevent the ability for other people to interrupt me or to put anything onto my plate. I especially limit the need for other people to organize with me synchronously, meaning that avoid requiring that we both have to be "in the same room" talking at the same time with each other to make decisions.
This means that I have a very limited set of official inboxes from which I can take requests and new items from other people. Outside of those inboxes, no one gets to expect that they can give me anything to do. They have to go through those inboxes, and those inboxes will *not* get immediate attention. So, in order for someone to get something on my list, they have to submit it to me, where I will address my commitment to it in my own time.
Doing so ensures that I carefully control what gets onto my plate. Until I've committed to something explicitly, people know that they can't be assured they'll get it. So, when I reach the end of the list, I will probably have already gone through tasks like "process email" or "process inbox" which will include dealing with my email and curating it and my inbox until I have a set of things that will require additional action of some sort beyond an email reply or the like. When I reach the end of my list, I'll already have decided by going through all of these lists and keeping in mind my other projects, what the one next thing is likely to be when I add it in. I can change my mind at that time, but I'll still have at least one item in mind from my inboxes that I might add to the list. As I go through the list again, I'll end up with either that thing finished, or I might add another thing, but the point being that I won't need to commit quickly to anything.
In summary, the short of it is that I have asynchronous inboxes that people have to use to queue up requests for my time/tasks to add to my list, and because they are asynchronous, I can process them on my own time as a part of working my list/time management system, whenever I want, and in the case of GITKIR, by the time I get to the end of the list, I will have one thing in mind to add to the list if I need to. Nothing gets onto my list automatically or synchronously.
In practice, I have very tightly controlled sets of commitments anyways, and often the set of things that I need to do fall under various projects, and those items are fairly well controlled in their order anyways. So sometimes I don't even put individual tasks on my main list. Instead, I'll simply have "work on project X" and then I go on that project and start working on it, with the set of tasks that are associated with that. And I apply the same degree of control to those projects, so that nothing gets onto the action items for a project until they are ready. Everything else is just sitting in queues that are explicitly marked so that people know that there is no commitment to getting any of them done. They are simply queues for people's ideas so that we have single points for discussion over them and stay organized.
Hope that makes sense! I think a key element here is asynchronous. No one gets to synchronously mess with my future time commitments.
Could that be summed up as:
"Avoid phone calls and meetings like the plague"
?
Well, it's more than just that. It's about changing how people are able to ask you to do things. So, avoid: meetings, phone calls, text messages, IMs, video calls, and in-person drop-bys. That last one is big. My office is such that people physically cannot get to me to interrupt me in person, except for a few exceptions, and even those exceptions, if they come at a bad time, can't "get me to do anything" by talking to me. In other words, I make synchronous messaging completely ineffective to getting something out of me, which means that people don't rely on it to try to get me to do something.
People will tend to adapt their way of working with you to match what gets the best results. Very often, people are very bad about handling their asynchronous inboxes, which means that people search for other means of getting them to do things. Maybe that means spamming their inboxes, or maybe it means sending reminders, or maybe it means dropping by in person to get you to look at an email that they just sent, or something else. I put a hard "no" on any of those activities. If anyone wants to come to me and try to discuss something impromptu that isn't urgent and immediately necessary (such that it justifies an interruption), then they get told to send me an email with the information or to send me an email to schedule a real meeting.
I don't reward synchronous communications, but I also work hard to be very responsive to asynchronous communications. It's a carrot and stick sort of thing.
To me at least, it's not enough to just avoid phone calls or meetings, even like the plague. I probably am more tolerant of my exposure risk to COVID than I am to something calling me up to ask me to do something. I don't have any voice or video systems open ever in such a way that I can receive an incoming call. You physically *can't* call me and get me to pick up the phone. You just leave a voicemail that goes straight to my inbox that I will process in the same way I process the rest of my inbox.
But another part of this is also not committing. That whole presumption of "No" is big. New things only get added and confirmed on the list after other things are done first. Anything else can get kept in a queue of things that people *want* me to address, but I explicitly do not commit to getting any of that done. I'm even very conservative with my estimates about future timing and plans. You generally won't get a commitment from me about when things will be done, or when the next thing can be started. You get "this is what I'm working on right now, when it is done, it is done, then we'll talk about the next thing to do" from me.
Not committing to future projects means that I cut *way* back on the issues of missed deadlines and the overheads of excessive planning. That's also big for my productivity, as so much time is wasted on planning, especially when people start to get used to relying on planning. If you are used to having to live without planning, or at best very very rough projections that have no commitment value, then you are able to spend much more time focusing on getting work done, and clearing things out.
Thanks for the further explanation. I think that's been my instinct too though I haven't anything like so comprehensively expressed or implemented it.
<< The question is how you sift everything you have, so that you can decide what you are actually going to do right now. >>
Yes, exactly. I find it very difficult to do that sifting in my head. When I get ready to start the day, I always have at least 6-8 things on my mind. Sifting them mentally just creates anxiety, I can’t hold it all in my head, and the “standing out” or “what am I resisting not doing” signals are all muddled. I find it much easier to jot them down and scan through them. This also triggers additional thoughts or memories about what else might need attention, so I write those down too.
This helps give me a sense for my day, and gets me oriented to the totality of work in front of me.
Then I choose one or two things and off I go.
When I was doing straight-up no-list, I would jot them all down on a white board, choose one or two items, and erase the rest. That worked very well, especially in very chaotic situations, but sometimes felt too ad-hoc and lacked follow-through. Serial No-List helps me keep the process more focused and grounded.
The volume of work and ideas is not a problem for me. I don’t know how many times I’ve emphasized that. I am committed to a relatively small number of key outcomes, and I deliver those outcomes, but I hold loosely to the means of achieving them. This allows me to pivot quickly to find a better path to the outcomes. I am always incorporating new demands and generating new ideas to achieve those ultimate outcomes. Almost all of these details are negotiable - even some of the overall outcomes are negotiable. I generate lots of potential ways to get to my outcomes, but I don't ever expect to do *all* of them. I don’t ever expect to get everything on my list done. My list is not just a "to-do list" - it is a thinking tool.
I could do the thinking separately, I suppose, but that always feels unnatural to me. The thinking and the acting are usually so intertwined, it works best for me to have one tool to manage them both.
So back to my question - how are people able to carry on with a system that asks them to choose just one new thing at a time, apparently without writing anything down? My question here is not a cry for help -- it is a question to understand more about people's different styles of thinking and working, which is an endlessly fascinating topic. I suppose it's either because they have just as many things to sort out but are able to do it in their heads and just choose that one thing mentally. Or they are more decisive in choosing one thing and letting the others go. Or they just don't feel the pull of so many different items. Or maybe there is some other dynamic I am missing.
You've asked the question a second time, but I just want to confirm that my answer to that question at least answered your question, for how I do it at least?
What I do, once I'm past the obvious things is jot down on a small piece of paper the things I really don't want to forget. I then enter them one by one on the main list.
Currently I have 26 tasks on the main list and 9 on the reminder note.
The beauty of Get It Right - Keep It Right is not in the selection process but in how well it processes stuff once it gets on the main list. So it doesn't really matter how you choose the one task per pass. You could even use Serial No-List for that purpose.
Some of my tasks are daily (eg. checking email) and some are weekly (eg. weekly report). If I add both to the list and I go through the list daily, is it okay for me to not do my weekly report until the Monday (or whatever workday) the report usually get done? How do I mark that? Do I still cross it as being completed because I scanned the item and decided it didn't need to be done that day?
I prestart my Lenten Challenge now, to be already in the groove with this system by Wednesday.
<< You've asked the question a second time, but I just want to confirm that my answer to that question at least answered your question, for how I do it at least? >>
Aaron, yes, sorry I didn't have time to respond to your posts last night. It's very interesting how you have managed to control the flow of external demands -- and yes, it gets right to the heart of my question.
I think the principal of controlling one's availability is really important, and I do that myself in various ways, such as blocking out my calendar so only certain times are available to schedule a meeting with me. But sometimes the environment demands more flexibility.
Haha, just now as I was writing this, I heard my 5yo daughter crying outside. I looked out my window -- my home office is on the second floor, overlooking a concrete parking space where the kids like to ride their bikes and scooters. There she was, crying and holding her knee, apparently having fallen off her scooter. None of the siblings appeared to be coming to help her, so I went down to check her out and get her back into her happy routine. Once she was happily riding, I realized the reason she had fallen was there was some clutter and goat droppings on the concrete, so I gave it a good sweeping, and checked to see if the goats were in their place. (Apparently my wife let them out to mow the weeds.)
So ten minutes later, I am back to finish this post. Good illustration of the need for flexibility, at least in my world! :)
This may be a stretch, but your post reminds me of a webinar I recently attended.
http://www.marris-consulting.com/en/training-news/training/lean-good-vs-bad-lean-training-description
Modern systems of all kinds -- factories, supply chains, IT, marketing, nonprofits, families and all their activities, individual time management, etc. -- have two important components: interdependence and variability. There are different theories and approaches for managing such systems.
Theory of Constraints (ToC) assumes the variability is inevitable, and proves that when you have both interdependence and variability, the Pareto Principle will come into play, causing one or two key bottlenecks to arise. The key to getting control of the system is to identify and manage the bottlenecks.
The Toyota Production System (TPS, the heart of Lean) takes a different approach, focusing on eliminating the variability, which they do relentlessly. If they see a bottleneck, they assume there is some new variability that has crept into the system, and seek to eliminate it. Once they do that, they can easily return to just-in-time flow.
I have learned a lot from TPS, but have found ToC to be more applicable in my work and home environments, which are full of variability that I don't have the power to eliminate. The concepts in ToC helps find where to focus to get a breakthrough and achieve my desired outcomes, despite the variability.
Your method sounds a lot more like TPS -- choking the input of all the demands gives you total control over external variability, so you can focus on optimizing your own internal flow.
<< What I do, once I'm past the obvious things is jot down on a small piece of paper the things I really don't want to forget. I then enter them one by one on the main list. >>
Interesting! Do you treat the reminder sheet as a "dynamic list" -- just throw it away at the end of the day? I could see how that would work.
And in general, you keep your main list day after day, but occasionally restart it? That's how I understood your write-up of the rules.
<< You could even use Serial No-List for that purpose. >>
Just to clarify, is this what you mean?
I would start a Gurker* list as usual. If I have trouble deciding what to put there, I can do my usual SNL process and just choose the top two tasks, and start my Gurker list with those.
Then when I am working the Gurker list, if I can't decide what to add as my new task, I would refer to my SNL process again to decide that.
Is that what you had in mind?
*Is this how to pronounce GIRKIR? :)
<< Do you treat the reminder sheet as a "dynamic list" -- just throw it away at the end of the day? >>
Yes, that's basically it.
<< And in general, you keep your main list day after day, but occasionally restart it? >>
Well, I haven't quite got there yet, but that's what I envisage. "Occasionally" may be a matter of a couple of days.
<< I can do my usual SNL process and just choose the top two tasks, and start my Gurker list with those. >>
Yes
<< Is this how to pronounce GIRKIR? >>
I've no idea! I pronounce it "Get It Right, Keep It Right".
<< Some of my tasks are daily (eg. checking email) and some are weekly (eg. weekly report). If I add both to the list and I go through the list daily, is it okay for me to not do my weekly report until the Monday (or whatever workday) the report usually get done? >>
Yes, absolutely fine.
<< How do I mark that? Do I still cross it as being completed because I scanned the item and decided it didn't need to be done that day? >>
No, you leave tasks on which you take no action (for whatever reason) where they are on the list and uncrossed out.
Thanks for your response! I like your comparison with TPS and ToC. Coming from a Computing/Software background, I"ve been influenced by the software application of both of these concepts. I'd say that you're probably right in that I work hard to reduce variability in my internal systems, but at the same time, i recognize that there *is* some internal variability that will always exist. I do use ToC to manage both internal and external variability. What I generally do, is to try to reduce or eliminate internal variability, but external variability cannot be reduced all the time, so instead, I shift external variability to specific entry points in the system so that they are buffered. Using buffers is a classic means of managing external variability.
Once I have the buffers in place, I can manage internal variability more readily. To manage external demand, I have to work to communicate with upstream sources of demand and regulate that commitment so that the amount of demand, whether high or low variability, remains within my capacity. Doing so usually ensures that external variability will never result in demand overwhelming my capacity. I'll usually lean towards staying below full capacity in order to ensure a certain level of responsiveness so that I can handle external variability as it comes in. This keeps me able to respond quickly despite having buffers.
That would mean, I have to do some work on every task that is already on the list. In points "2." and "3." it says "do some work on the task".
This seems to contradict the prior sentence "It consists of a task list as in Simple Scanning which you work on in exactly the same way as in Simple Scanning" under the Summary heading.
So, how do I work the list? As in Simple Scanning, doing what stands out? Or do I have to work on every task (were there is possible work to be done at the moment)?
<< So, how do I work the list? As in Simple Scanning, doing what stands out? Or do I have to work on every task (were there is possible work to be done at the moment)? >>
I'm sorry that I haven't described this as clearly as I should have.
The idea is to get everything right and then to keep it right - as the title suggests. That means that new tasks should be worked on until they are up-to-date, and then should be worked on often enough to keep them up-to-date. This will obviously vary from task to task according to its nature.
As a guide, my own practice is to work on each task which it is practicable to work on at least once during each pass. However it is a guide rather than as an immovable rule. If necessary I'm quite prepared to move quickly to a particular task while skipping most of the others.
The important things to remember are:
1) Get it right. When a task or project is added to the list it's essential to get it up-to-date as quickly as possible. How long this will take will vary enormously, but you need to give it whatever it takes.
2) Keep it right. It's easier to keep a project up to date by working on it in short bursts, rather than in one huge session.
If you concentrate on both these things, you won't go far wrong.
Maybe I miss it already answered somewhere: What I'm still trying to grasp is when to enter a new task. I use --n) to indicate the n-th line in my notebook. Is it
a) I put tidy and email on my list and do
--1) tidy (tidied a bit, cross out, want to do it again, so rewrite it in line 3)
--2) email (got to inbox zero, cross out, but surely want to check again, so rewrite it in line 4)
--3) tidy (tidied some more, cross out, but not finished, so rewrite it in line 5)
--4) email (it's sunday night, so probably still inbox zero, nothing to do, leave here/open)
--5) tidy (kids are in bed, too late to tidy, leave task open)
--6) since I'm at the actual end of the list ("nothing more to do right now on what's already on the list"), I may add a new task in this line (6)
or
b) Again, tidy and email to start the list
--1) tidy (tidied a bit, want to do it again, so cross out and rewrite it in line 3)
--2) email (got to inbox zero, but surely want to check again, so cross out and rewrite it in line 4)
--here was the end of my list, so enter a new task in line 5 and continue with line 3
--3) tidy
--4) email
--5) new task
then 3) tidy (re-enter), 4) leave email there (remember, it's sunday night) and 5) do the new task (re-enter), enter an even newer task in line 8 and continue with line 6
--6) tidy
--7) new task
--8) even newer task
<< What I'm still trying to grasp is when to enter a new task. >>
Imagine you are dealing with a closed list. In other words you are not allowed to add any more tasks.
So you might have a list like this:
Email
Paper
Tidy desk
Read newspaper
Check favourite blog
Charge phone
When you reach the end of this list it might read something like this:
Email
Paper
Check favourite blog
You go back to the beginning and start again with Email.
That's a closed list. However with GIRKIR you add one task per pass.
So when you reach the end of the list, you add one task, So you add the task "Project X" and the list now reads:
Email
Paper
Check favourite blog
Project X
You do not action Project X until you reach it having gone through the list again.
I first wrote "somewhat like a closed list" in scenario b) but thought that could lead to further confusion so I deleted it. Might not have been so wrong ;-)
I worked the system with a task "new" at the end of my list to remind me that this is, in fact, the end of the closed list and I can add a new task now. If I understood you correctly, this should be in line with b) and your answer/your instructions.
<< I worked the system with a task "new" at the end of my list to remind me that this is, in fact, the end of the closed list and I can add a new task now. >>
If you're doing it right there should be no need for this.
You know you're at the end of the list because there are no more tasks on the list.
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
--------
So I do task 1 and re-enter:
X Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
--------
Task 1
And I skip Task 2:
X Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
--------
Task 1
And I do Task 3 but don't re-enter:
X Task 1
Task 2
X Task 3
--------
Task 1
Now, I am at the "end of the list" that was initially there, but not the end of the list as it stands now, because I re-entered one item to it. One interpretation is that I should add the task at this point, and then go back to Task 2 at the start of the list and start work again:
X Task 1
> Task 2
X Task 3
--------
Task 1
Task 4
The other interpretation is that I haven't reached the end of the list yet, so I keep going, and maybe do Task 1 again:
X Task 1
Task 2
X Task 3
-------
X Task 1
Task 1
But now I'm still not at the end of the list in this new interpretation, though I'm "past the end" of the list in the previous interpretation. Maybe I skip over Task 1 at this point, at which point I am at the end of the list and add Task 4, going back up to Task 2:
X Task 1
> Task 2
X Task 3
--------
X Task 1
Task 1
Task 4
I hope that clarifies the confusion of which interpretation is which.
<< I think the confusion is understanding what "end of the list" means, whether that means, "end of the list as it was before I started re-entering tasks," or, "end of the list after tasks have been re-entered >>
It means "end of the list after tasks have been re-entered, and possibly done again one or more times".
In other words it is the point at which you go back to the beginning of the list.
And at this point you add one task but do not take action on it yet.