Get Everything Done

Hi,

Last week, I started to use Mark's theory of timed bursts to start getting ahead on some ugly projects. It worked really well.

Now I have expanded it to my entire work day. Rather than do a Pomodoro method of 25 minutes on, 5 minutes off, I do 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off, then 10:5, 15:5, etc. I am finding more energy throughout the day and more sustained focus in the waning hours when it is more necessary.

Thanks Mark for this, DWM, and everything else!

According to my view of AF, when I get stuck on a task I move on to something else. Is this not contradictory to the above "work stop resume" mode of operating? Does anyone do both?

VHJ,
It works for me as well for those "ugly projects" which are usually important, but which for some reasons we do not get stuck into up front or as we should. WHY? $64 MILLION question!

In my case I find that I do not need a break for some time, but get so absorbed that 5 + 10 +15 + 20 . . . go by until I have done over 2 hours, then I break, usually feeling pleased with myself. At the same time, I ask myself why I had prevaricated till then!

Alan B
That "do something else" sounds interesting, I might try that, but do you not find the the first task is till sitting on your shoulder while you tackle task two? On the other hand, maybe progress on task two gives one the KITA for task one!

All of which confirms me again that while we on this forum have something in common, even the Group Norm, we must all find that way that suits us.

A luta continua.

In response to Allen: "According to my view of AF, when I get stuck on a task I move on to something else. Is this not contradictory to the above "work stop resume" mode of operating? Does anyone do both?"

Right, so I use timed bursts in two ways:

1) As Mark suggested, to move through a stuck project on my DWM list. It is usually my current initiative. And I work though it until I am done. For "breaks" I do other things on my list.

2)I do an "uber" time burst. In the office at 9, break at 9:05 and keep going until I am ready to leave. I don't take a lunch break or anything, so the 5 minute breaks have been adding up to an hour long break, with the intervals of work getting larger as the day progresses.

Hope this makes sense.

2)

Very sorry for spelling your name wrong Alan!

I, too, am a big believer in "timed bursts." Ever since discovering that the Pomodoro could be set for shorter intervals than 20 minutes (currently I am using 5 minutes as the cutoff point) I have been using short time intervals as a way of beginning onerous tasks. One thing I like -- and find it hard to stick by although I am trying -- is the simple rule of STOPPING the moment the five minute interval is up. As a way of training myself I have begun following this rule to the letter. I find that by stopping in the middle I actually increase my desire to get back to the task soon -- even when the task is an unpleasant one (like doing my taxes). I'm not sure what the psychology is that's at work in this situation -- only know that so far it is working for me. I wonder if there are other people on this message board who have had a similar t

Steve, my guess is that Gestalt psychology explains this. We have a seemingly innate drive for wholeness, completion, closure. Certainly this drive has been reinforced throughout our lives as well. That is why it actually requires mental effort to stop one's work before a typical end point.

A second reason this works is because we finish our work at a pleasant point. Typically what procrastinators do is finally dive in and spend the whole day or weekend on the project, ending up exhausted. The next time that project appears on your list, you will recall the fatigue and large time commitment and once again, you'll recoil at starting it. But if you can quit before you are fatigued or at a natural stopping point, you harness your desire for completion and the pleasant memories of your last work on the project and can get back to it with vigor.

Roger, et al,

When following AF4 I'm working on a task for a while, hit a mental block or something, and put that task away, end of the open list. Then I continue down the AF4 scanning as per AF4. When that task is a hot issue, I do find it sitting on my shoulder nagging me to get back to it but the AF4 rules seem to push me in another direction. Still the nag does push me to gogogo until I get back to the big task I want to work on.

The alternative is to put the task aside, do something else [or nothing] and come back after 5 minutes. I think that makes a lot of sense but I don't see how you fit this into the rules of AF4. I might be worried that if I stick to one task too long (with many bursts mixed by periods of idleness) I would neglect to get around the list and miss something urgent. I guess I just need to limit myself.

I can't imagine mixing bursts of work with scanning the list and then getting back to work. Very few of my tasks are low-intensity stuff I could do in less than 5 minutes.

veghead, no problem. I figure if I see "Allen" it must be referring to some guru with a system for getting things done, and not to me. All's clear now.

veghead, thanks for bringing the technique back to mind. I've done it on my own before and wasn't crazy about the technique, but the other day, I got both my kids going on the bursts with me for cleaning the house, organizing and decluttering and it worked like a charm. The 9 y.o. is nagging at me to be able to do it again. We also added in fun stuff like check email, read and go on net. And I added lifting weights to one of the bursts. :-)

We kept going for 4 hours at it on Thursday and got a huge amount of stuff done on stuff we'd been putting off. Also doing it this morning. I think I'll post a link to one of Mark's blog posts about it on the flylady list I belong to as it could help other people out too.

Thanks for resurrecting the thread. I'm still trying to figure out how you can balance between this technique and the AF mantra of little and often. See my post above for more confusion. Anybody?

Hey Alan,

I think one of the beauties of the timed burst option is that you can alter the timing of the bursts. So you might do something like:

- big project A - 5 min / 20 / 45 / 45
- break - 5 / 5 / 5 / 5
- AF list - 5 / 20 / 45 / 45
- big project B - 5 / 20 / 45 / 45
- check email - 10 / 10 / 10 / 30 (to clear everything out for the day)

That's pretty much a whole work day right there.

So big projects aren't in your list?

I suppose they would be if I was using AF or DWM, but I'm not. They are on my daytimer for my weekly home tasks and projects, but I don't use a TM system at work at all, and never really have for years despite a one or two month trial with AF that didn't work very well for me.

Right now, I don't have a "normal" job anyway, I'm doing some contract work so don't have the regular email and administrivia that's typical of most jobs. But if I was, I'd consider doing something like the above bursted sessions to ensure that the bigger, more important projects were better represented than I found them to be with regular AF.

It's basically like the current initiative option for DWM or AF that Mark outlined isn't it?

Jacqueline,

Could you possibly clarify something for me? You wrote:

> - big project A - 5 min / 20 / 45 / 45
> - break - 5 / 5 / 5 / 5
> - AF list - 5 / 20 / 45 / 45
> - big project B - 5 / 20 / 45 / 45
> - check email - 10 / 10 / 10 / 30 (to clear everything out for the day)

How exactly would you go through these timed bursts during your work day? Would you start with 5 minutes on project A, have a 5 minute break, 5 minutes on your AF list, 5 minutes on project B, 10 minutes on email...and then back for 20 minutes on big project A, a five minute break, 20 minutes on the AF list, etc? In other words, are you cycling through these one after the other, or are you doing this in some other way?

I'm curious because I'm terrible at keeping cycling through the various projects and tasks I need to do -- I have a bunch of "big rocks" that usually take up my entire day, leaving no time at all for the other tasks (like working through my DWM list). The big rocks are high priority items, generally taking weeks to complete, but I often spend so much time on them that I never get to other (equally important) tasks and projects. I'm wondering if your "cycling through the timed bursts" approach might help to solve this problem.

Thanks,

- Erik.

Erik,

In Mark's GED book he describes it exactly that way.

You work your projects in rotation and you allocate a time for each. He suggests several ways to allocate time, depending on what is going on. (Much like there are 5 versions of AF now.)

These are my notes for that section of the book. (To repeat, these are my personal NOTES and not designed for easy reading by others so ... ;-)

++++++

[P88] Chapter 7: How to Deal with Free Flowing Items

Exercise: Write for EXACTLY five minutes on a problem that have not been able to tackle … avoiding. When timer goes off, underline new insights and list them.

Will have achieved some new insights and made more progress in the five minutes than in the previous months. The point is that having a deadline (exactly) concentrates the mind. It is possible to control this "end effect" to increase productivity. Working late, for example, robs you of the productivity gain of the end effect, as does taking work home.

An advantage to stopping abruptly is that the mind craves completion … when you come back to it you will have been subconsciously working on it.

Exercise: Do the previous exercise with two items (pick different TYPES). Work round the list, increasing the time by five minutes each time you work on an item until it is done. By the time you get up to 20 minutes you will have accomplished a lot on your list. The variety also helps keep the mind clear. Add more items until you reach 10.

[P94] Use Checklists. Not a To Do list of unassociated items but a checklist. First make a list of routine items you need to work on. (Email, Filing, etc.) Then rotate working on them in round robin fashion for short bursts. Use a checklist for each of those "projects". Break up bursts of work with bursts of rest. Increase by 5 minutes if not complete. Drop back to five minutes once complete.

Tips:
• Strict Cut-Off. Don't go beyond the time you set.
• Move right to the next item
• Limited target for work
• Don't have too many items on list
• Make list to cover ALL of work
• Take regular timed beaks (5 min after 30)
• Take break right after starting next item

Exercise:
• Make list of up to 10 subjects covering complete range of responsibilities
• Set target for today for each
• Rotate through the list and keep strict time
• Next day, either continue or start over

[P106] Chapter 8: Variations on the System

• Basic:Task1 5, 10, 15, 20, 5 (reset to 5 when finished)
• Var1: Task1 5, 10, 15, 20, 15, 10, 15 (back down when done)
• Var2 Task1 5, 10, 15, 20, 20, 15, 10, 15 (hold for a bit when done)
• Var3 Task1 5, 10, 20, 40 (double)
• Var4 Task1 10, 20, 40 (leave out short first time)
• Var5 (start with two and add another each round, cross out and reenter - AF?)
• Var5 (Standard Burst Length - 20)
• Var6 (One Length for entire list, divide total by number and keep constant)

He suggests where each variation might be good but you can kind of figure that out yourself. He also suggests to not make the list of tasks too long. Much more than 10 causes problems.

Hey Erik, Mike's right in that you can use it for various time layouts. Some people do time-boxing as well, which might work just as well for your world with a little less overhead.

Waiting for a bell so I can get back to work. There it is!

Wow -- thanks, guys, for the wonderful replies to my questions.

Mike: thank you so much for sharing your notes. I have DIT, but alas GED isn't so easy to come by here in New Zealand. Your summary makes a *lot* of sense. I'm keen to try this "experiment" as soon as I've gotten over this head-cold and can be productive again.

Jacqueline: timeboxing is an interesting idea. Most of the links I found about it were related to using it for software development rather than managing your time...but it does seem to be worthwhile as you suggested.

Thanks again, guys!

- Erik.

PS: just so you know, I'm not the same "Erik" who posted the "Transitioning from GTD to AF1" thread. There must be two of us around...

I am bumping up this thread.
There is a list of variations of timed bursts from Mark Forster's book GED, and others post their own uses.

So - when is it a good idea to work straight through on a project, and when to take a break?
As I remember even Cal Newport says that in the middle of 90-minute time block he takes a break. I don't recall where - it was in an interview on a website.

Ok, Cal Newport got pushback because he saw a movie during the day, and skipped work.
It is Episode 318 of his podcast.
Apparently, in his book Slow Productivity, he recommends seeing a movie once a month during work hours, and just say you have a personal appointment.

Maybe if Cal Newport took more breaks, he wouldn't have to go to a movie during work. As he was explaining he was working many hours on a project, I think writing a book over several days, and felt like he needed a break. He says most office workers won't be missed if they go see a movie. However, I can think of several jobs I have had where if my boss found out I would have gotten fired.
Why can't he see a movie on his own time?

Perhaps this deserves its own thread - the subject of whether it is better to do work in an uninterrupted long block of time, or to break it up into small units of timed bursts.
I think it depends on the capacity of the worker, and the nature of the work.
I tend to use these timed bursts on routines, chores, tasks I find difficult or don't want to do, or starting up a project, or when fatigued, or when my time is limited. Or when I have several things I have to get done, and don't want to neglect any of them.

However, I cannot keep it up the whole day. The brain has its own time table which might not correspond to clock time, and might rebel if treated like a factory worker tied to a clock.
For some work it takes several minutes to get into a flow state. If one is working on a complex problem, it takes some minutes to load the information into short term memory and keep it there until a solution is reached.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread - the subject of whether it is better to do work in an uninterrupted long block of time, or to break it up into small units of timed bursts.
I think it depends on the capacity of the worker, and the nature of the work.
I tend to use these timed bursts on routines, chores, tasks I find difficult or don't want to do, or starting up a project, or when fatigued, or when my time is limited. Or when I have several things I have to get done, and don't want to neglect any of them.

However, I cannot keep it up the whole day. The brain has its own time table which might not correspond to clock time, and might rebel if treated like a factory worker tied to a clock.
For some work it takes several minutes to get into a flow state. If one is working on a complex problem, it takes some minutes to load the information into short term memory and keep it there until a solution is reached.

I am just sharing my personal experience, and if anyone chooses to work their whole day like this, and are more productive, that's great. Every day I use a timer on something, and I find the smallest intervals of time under 5 minutes - 1,2,3,4 minutes - I cannot keep up for long, maybe an hour at the most. There is too much switching of tasks. The longer intervals of 5 minutes and more, I can keep up for longer, perhaps for even a whole morning or afternoon. However, it happens that I notice that either I become so engrossed in a task that I forget to reset the timer, or I have a strong urge to continue working on a task and not reset the timer. Often from that point I abandon the timer, depending on the purpose of the timer. So the timer is a tool and not the task master. If one has reached a state of flow, energy, passion - sometimes it is best to take advantage of it and go with the activity regardless of the time limit.

OK, regarding Cal Newport:
I listened to more of the podcast. He acknowledges the criticism that watching a movie during work could get one fired. And he says that his book Slow Productivity is addressed to the knowledge worker, creative worker, and not the crankers, those who have cranking jobs, like car workers on an assembly line. Unfortunately, creative workers are treated by managers as crankers, so he says this criticism is a symptom of a larger problem, and that going to see a movie is a "larger metaphor". And that we need to change how we manage creative workers. However, the responsibility of leaving work is on the worker.

This is really not satisfying to me. I would like to hear from him to please do not leave work for a personal appointment to watch a movie if you will risk getting fired over it. He is giving bad advice here. He admits he often watches movies on Wednesday mornings.

Thanks for bumping this. I think it depends on your capacity and work environment. I naturally have interruptions to my day. I’ve also arranged the areas to provide natural breaks.

I can’t believe I started this post! Just last week when walking with my spouse, I was explaining to her my current system if I’ve been using for over six months. I use excel, and have formulas to track my time bursts. I was explaining how those work and telling her how much more productive I am when I use this, only to find by looking at this post that I started doing this in 2010! Time flies when you’re bursting time 😀

Vegheadjones,

Could you share the details of your current system? thank you