Using a timer
Monday, September 20, 2021 at 11:59 One of the most useful tools for managing your time is, strangely enough, a timer. Most SmartPhones come with excellent timers, but any old timer will do. Note that I’m not referring to an alarm, though these can be useful time management tools too.
My very first book “Get Everything Done” was about the use of a timer to work on tasks for increasing intervals. The intervals I used in the book were increasing intervals of 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes and so on up to a maximum of 40 minutes. if you work on a task in increasing intervals right up to a 40 minute interval, you will have worked on it for three hours.
Guess what? Twenty-one years later the system still works.
However there are many other ways of using timed intervals, and the only limit is your imagination. And one of the great advantages is that you can use timed intervals in conjunction with almost any other system.
So for instance I am writing this blog post using intervals of one minute increasing by one minute each time. There’s no gap between the intervals. The intervals are just there to keep my concentration going - and they are very effective at that.
Currently I’ve just started a six minute interval, which means that so far I’ve been continuously writing the blog post for 1+2+3+4+5=15 minutes.
This blog post is actually the third item on a list of five items, which I am working through one task at a time. I’m timing each item individually but an alternative (and equally effective) way of doing it would be to time the whole group of five as one.
Another way I’m currently using a timer is for reading books. Though I love reading, it’s very easy to get distracted. Using timed intervals makes it much easier to maintain concentration. I use a slightly different technique for this. This time I count down as well as up. So I aim to read up to ten minutes and then count back down to one. If you want to read for a shorter period or longer period you can use more or fewer intervals, e.g. up to five minutes and back, or fifteen minutes and back.
How much concentrated reading time does going up to ten minutes and back down to one give you? If you’re not a mathematician you may be surprised at the answer. It’s one hour and forty minutes. That’s a powerfully long session of concentrated reading.
I find increasing the intervals upwards only is best for tasks when you don’t know exactly how long they’ll take. But increasing the intervals upward and then downward is for something like reading which you want to do for a set time.
My current seven minute interval is coming to an end, and I’m just about at the end of writing this post. So it will have taken me 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28 minutes.
Why not give it a try? There are many more possible variations. You can experiment to see which suits you best.
Reader Comments (30)
<< This is the genesis of the Pomodoro method. >>
Indeed it is.
"Get Everything Done" published 2000.
"Pomodoro Technique" PDF published 2006
<< I use the TimeTimer. >>
I've got one of those sitting on my desk next to my screen. I used to use it a lot when I was giving seminars and the like. I hardly use it nowadays, especially as my Smartphone's timer has a similar sort of decreasing circle - but which I can set for any time I wish. Interested to see that they have a free phone app which I have now downloaded. It makes a noise when the time runs out which my old one didn't - which was a major fault.
So when you read for 1+2+3+4+5 intervals, and an interval ends with a beep from your phone, you have to pick up your phone and input 2, read, beep, put down book, pick up phone, enter 3, read, beep, etc. That seems too interruptive for me, but again, I'm probably misunderstanding the mechanics of how you're using your phone to do this.
I have a timer app on my iPhone where I can pre-set intervals, but it's a cumbersome experience.
<< but...no break between the intervals? >>
Not with short intervals like these, no. The idea is to keep your concentration on one task.
With longer intervals, e.g. 5 mins, 10 mins, 15 mins, etc you can either take a short break (say one minute) or alternate one task with another, i.e. 5 mins on Task A, 5 mins on Task B, 10 mins on Task A, etc.
<< you have to pick up your phone and input 2, read, beep, put down book, pick up phone, enter 3, read, beep, etc >>
With my phone, I would normally have it on the desk in front of me so I don't have to pick it up. All I have to do when "1" beeps is press "2 Start", both of which the timer conveniently has right there on the screen. It takes one or two seconds at most.
<< That seems too interruptive for me >>
Being interruptive is the whole idea. It brings your attention back from wherever it may have wandered off to.
Also the idea is that when you are doing a big scary job, you only have to commit yourself to working on it for one minute. Nine times out of ten (or more likely ninety-nine times out of a hundred) once you've done it for one minute you'll be happy to commit to two minutes. And so on. By the time you've worked up to a ten minute interval you'll have done 55 minutes of concentrated work. If you'd committed to working for 55 minutes at the start, your attention would probably have wandered off during that time, meaning you'd have done much less than 55 minutes.
In fact there are many ways in which you can use a timer. I've just given a few, but the only limit is your imagination.
Here someone (not me) demonstrates how to use it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHzKvsUWSA&list=RDCMUCZbNOg2fHR3jMpo27oqXDyg&start_radio=1&rv=MfHzKvsUWSA&t=186
I've used other timers but this is definitely the easiest and fastest to use.
Because of the ease in using it, I often use the interval of one minute or two minutes. This works well with a short checklist, where you have to check on a item, such as spot cleaning.
Sometimes I take a break between the intervals.
I might start a session with the timer, and increase the time length and eventually give it up after I get momentum.
Would your recommend timing breaks as well?
For 5, 10, 15, etc.: There seems to be a big difference between:
A) Working on one task at a time, increasing the intervals as needed. E.g. You select tasks from no-list or a long list, working 5+10+15 on one task, then 5+10 on a second, then 5 on a third, then 5+10+15+20 on a fourth, etc.
B) The "Get Everything Done" system, which (as I understand it) is to group tasks into categories, then rotate among the categories. So, one works 5 minutes on each of several task categories, and *only after a complete rotation*, one's increases the interval to 10 minutes, and so on.
C) Applying the "Get Everything Done" approach to an non-categorized no-list or longer list: rotating among tasks, working on each for 5 minutes, then after a complete rotation, going up to 10 minutes, and so on.
I wonder which approach is better or recommended, though I suppose all of the above are valid.
(Cf. My question about the "Get Everything Done" system at the bottom of this thread: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2785841 )
<<B) The "Get Everything Done" system, which (as I understand it) is to group tasks into categories, then rotate among the categories. So, one works 5 minutes on each of several task categories, and *only after a complete rotation*, one's increases the interval to 10 minutes, and so on.>>
I would like to try this. I have the GED book. But I couldn't come up with the categories.
I have done it with C - a list of tasks. I do this regularly.
I used 5min, 10min, 15min ...
But I think this one begins from 1 minute with a 1-minute increment would work even better.
The only problem is I have to modify the timer frequently, especially at the beginning a few minutes.
Since I failed to find an app to automatically generate timers with increasing intervals,
I made a piece of audio with some ring sound at 1 min, 3 min, 6 min, and so on,
which works well.
<< I made a piece of audio with some ring sound at 1 min, 3 min, 6 min, and so on,
which works well. >>
Great idea!
<<Being interruptive is the whole idea. It brings your attention back from wherever it may have wandered off to. >>
D'oh! The zen stick/head-smacking moment. The killer has left the clue out for all to see and I passed right over it.
Yes, thank you for that change of perspective; it totally alters my mindset around that question.
---
I remember many years ago using the GED method to set up categories for clearing my paper inbox, clearing my email inbox, doing taxes, and cleaning out files, in increments of 5-10-15-20-15-10-5 and was amazed at how much I got done. There was also something about switching from one task to another that provided a bit of variety to the experience and kept me going.
---
My workday today is all about a couple of big tasks rather than meetings and knocking out small tasks. For a day when I'm working on a big project (like drafting a user guide or web pages), I use my Datexx Cube timer (http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002U72LS/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1), though they appear to have lots more options available these days (http://smile.amazon.com/stores/Datexx/page/D36D38AB-0FE3-4CC6-9BA9-A61393E4B09A?ref_=ast_bln).
Do you have any guides/principles about which tasks you use timers on, and which tasks you do for as you long as feel like (as in AF etc.)?
Example:
Autofocus 1: 2 hours and 34 mintues
Clinical: 5 hours
I'm curious to see what happens with my discretionary time when working from an Autofocus list.
<< When I drift away from Autofocus 1 - and do whatever I want - I stop the timer. >>
The action of stopping the timer will probably change the dynamic. You have to make a decision to stop the timer, which means that you must have noticed that you are drifting, which may well stop you drifting.
<< You have to make a decision to stop the timer, which means that you must have noticed that you are drifting>>
Oh, that's good. Added.
A question re: Autofocus 1: Do you work off your list for small pockets of time re: 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there?
I tried reading with and interval timer. I set all the intervals once for the entire 2h20m duration, and I found I was ignoring the alarms altogether.
<< is it the short break--the act of pausing to reset the alarm each time--that is the reminder to renew your focus, or is the alarm going off? >>
I had to think about the answer to that, since I have never done it without having to reset the intervals. But I'm pretty sure, especially after reading your experience, that it is being forced to stop and re-start which is what restores one's concentration.
<<You have to make a decision to stop the timer, which means that you must have noticed that you are drifting, which may well stop you drifting.>>
Are you suggesting I add "Stop timer" to my Autofocus list. If so, I ran into this problem:
I had 20 minutes before an appointment. I started the timer/Autofocus, picked an item, worked on it for appx 18 minutes, and then realized I had to leave my house for the appointment. If I didn't stop the timer, it would have given me a false/inflated reading of how long I was working in Autofocus mode. However, with two minutes before my appointment, I didn't have enough time to follow AF rules until I reached "Stop Timer", which was further down the list.
I'd be curious to know if you have a different way of implementing this. In fact, I'd be curious to know if - for you - there's a minimum of time that is too brief to bother with the list. For example: If you have five minutes of discretionary time... do you still recommend working off your Autofocus list?
<< For example: If you have five minutes of discretionary time... do you still recommend working off your Autofocus list? >>
Yes, definitely. In fact I'd still work off the list if I only had one minute. The reason is that if you start something and then stop when you are still working on it, your mind wants to complete the task.
<<Yes, definitely. In fact I'd still work off the list if I only had one minute. The reason is that if you start something and then stop when you are still working on it, your mind wants to complete the task>>
But with less than 5 minutes, I'd imagine most of those moments would be spent on the first two steps of AF:
1. Read quickly through all the items on the page without taking action on any of them.
2. Go through the page more slowly looking at the items in order until one stands out for you.
And rarely making it to step 3:
3. Work on that item for as long as you feel like doing so.
I think your above rationale for sticking to the list - regardless of time - is sound. In particular for someone like me who bends the rules once, twice and then I stop trusting (and using) the system. But I still wonder if I'd ever make it to step three with a limited amount of time. I'll experiment tomorrow.
<< But with less than 5 minutes, I'd imagine most of those moments would be spent on the first two steps of AF: >>
Those two steps only apply when you first start work on the list at the beginning of the day (or similar long break). I was assuming that you were already well into your work day.
So, yes, if you've just had breakfast and have one minute before you have to leave for an appointment then no, I wouldn't use a timer for an individual task, though I might have one set anyway to remind me to leave on time.
And I realise that I failed to answer the first question in your comment:
<< Are you suggesting I add "Stop timer" to my Autofocus list. >>
No.
1) Running timers all the time can get a little annoying (there's a sentence in "Get Everything Done" that says as much). That said, if they change my work habits for the better, I'm willing to get used to them.
2) I'm having a bit of trouble achieving "end effects" with a timer. When I use 5 + 10 + 15, etc. or 1 + 2 + 3, etc., my brain seems to sense that if I don't finish a task in a given time interval, there will be another time interval to follow it. This can undermine the concentration and (gentle) pressure created by the "end effect." In other words, there seems to be a danger that timers might just become another form of open-ended time tracking. It's not the same as, say, truly having to finish something in the next 10 minutes because the office is closing. (Though probably one wouldn't want that kind of pressure all the time!) The above difficulty may be particularly pronounced when the tasks are themselves open-ended: e.g.: reading "War and Peace," drafting an essay...
Perhaps I'm just over-thinking this or not used to timers yet. I've only done a little experimenting with them.
Another possibility is that I'm expecting too much. Perhaps much of the point of the timer is simply to alert you to the passing of time. So that, say, knowing you are taking 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 minutes to write an simple email should be enough to spur you on the path toward working more efficiently. I'm not sure.
<< Perhaps much of the point of the timer is simply to alert you to the passing of time. So that, say, knowing you are taking 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 minutes to write an simple email should be enough to spur you on the path toward working more efficiently. I'm not sure. >>
The passing of time is certainly one aspect of it, but not the main one. The main purpose of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 minutes is to reduce resistance, which in turn will tend to increase your speed of working.
As an example, imagine that you are resisiting writing a difficult email. It's getting more and more overdue, and you just can't get yourself to start it. But could you work on it for just 1 minute? Almost certainly. So set your timer for 1 minute and get moving.
When the minute is up, you have the choice of working on somethihg else or continuing with the email. If you decide to continue, you can take advantage of the momentum gained by setting your timer for 2 minutes.
When you've finished 2 minutes, you have three choices. You can stop and go and do something else. Or you can set the timer for 3 minutes. Or you can count down, and set the timer for 1 minute again.
The third option of counting down is valuable when you feel that you can;t keep increasing the work interval any more but still have some momentum.
If you counted down from the 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 minutes example you would have done 25 minutes work in total.
Almost any task, no matter how much you are resisting it, can be got moving by using this technique.
To be honest, though, I think that (some of the time at least!) resistance to starting or continuing a task isn't my biggest problem.
I believe it's more an issue of working efficiently. For instance, I might be willing to read War and Peace or to draft a difficult report for hours. The problem is, while working--with or without a timer--my speed/concentration/effectiveness leaves room for improvement.
You do say that reducing resistance "in turn will tend to increase your speed of working" so maybe that's the only answer I need (and maybe there is some underlying resistance that I need to chip away).
Anyway, I'll keep trying different things!
It is true that after a while running timers is annoying, but that's part of the game. Eventually, you forget to reset the timer, or have built up enough momentum so you dispense with the timer.
The key for me seems to be what Mark called the "end effect" in "Get Everything Done." In my early trials, I didn't take adequate (or consistent) breaks and ran consecutive timers. At least for me, this didn't work so well and killed the "end effect," making it seem like I was just tracking the passing of time. But taking a timed break between intervals or forcing oneself to switch tasks as soon as the timer goes off (both suggested in GED) have worked better to keep the discrete time intervals intact.