Discussion Forum > Testing a Variation of SuperFocus
This looks interesting, and more ergonomic for my work flow. Trying.
March 23, 2011 at 18:32 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
Thanks for re-joining the Forum (even if it's temporary or only for this post)!
I see a potential pitfall with this variation: if you visit a page with one or more C2 tasks to be done, and something urgent comes up, you cannot work immediately on that newly urgent task. The only way out of this dilemma would be your old "common sense" rule. If you merely add the C2-before-C1 rule, the dilemma is avoided.
Thanks for re-joining the Forum (even if it's temporary or only for this post)!
I see a potential pitfall with this variation: if you visit a page with one or more C2 tasks to be done, and something urgent comes up, you cannot work immediately on that newly urgent task. The only way out of this dilemma would be your old "common sense" rule. If you merely add the C2-before-C1 rule, the dilemma is avoided.
March 23, 2011 at 18:47 |
ubi
ubi
Interesting. Just yesterday I started testing a variation where I put a time limit on each page -- "You must get through each page in 45 minutes or less". It had the effect of driving me to complete everything (or nearly everything) in C2 before giving serious consideration to anything in C1. And as a result of that, I was turning pages every 20-30 minutes on average -- much less than the 45 I had allocated -- and MUCH faster than anything I've ever managed to do in the past. So, I can see how this new idea could make the list run faster.
I think I'll stick with my variation for a bit longer and see how it works out. After that experiment is done, I'll revisit this one.
Thanks Mark!
I think I'll stick with my variation for a bit longer and see how it works out. After that experiment is done, I'll revisit this one.
Thanks Mark!
March 23, 2011 at 20:39 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Oh that sounds fun. I needed something to get me to move through the pages faster. I will try this starting in the morning.
March 24, 2011 at 4:15 |
Don R
Don R
The meaning of these two amendments conjoined is that you add to the top of the next page the urgent and unfinished tasks from the present page.
That makes a second column unneded. One can place a "post it" over the next page with those tasks in order to physically convey that these are the first tasks to deal with before starting with the next page items.
Rules for the "post it": After working on a task, a. if it is finished cross it out, b. if it is not finished do nothing. Reuse the post it by moving it to the next page (ecological reasons).
In the case of "War and Peace" (long term project), one could move one "post it" from page to page after reading the lot for the present page. No need to write dozens times the same thing.
I think these are very good amendments. They make the system simpler while keeping its functionality, i.e. more efficient.
That makes a second column unneded. One can place a "post it" over the next page with those tasks in order to physically convey that these are the first tasks to deal with before starting with the next page items.
Rules for the "post it": After working on a task, a. if it is finished cross it out, b. if it is not finished do nothing. Reuse the post it by moving it to the next page (ecological reasons).
In the case of "War and Peace" (long term project), one could move one "post it" from page to page after reading the lot for the present page. No need to write dozens times the same thing.
I think these are very good amendments. They make the system simpler while keeping its functionality, i.e. more efficient.
March 24, 2011 at 4:38 |
Marcelo
Marcelo
Mmm, the "post-it" version affects the dismissal rule for a full page. A date could be used for that: "all tasks one week old must be activated or dismissed", for example.
March 24, 2011 at 5:39 |
Marcelo
Marcelo
Hi Mark,
The last couple days, I have been finding myself clearing C2 first, even before looking at the C1 tasks, and this has been working great. I decided I don't need my page timer anymore -- clearing C2 first makes it move really fast, all by itself, without any timer.
I also have adopted the "put urgent items in C2 of next page" rule as my standard practice, but I still do have situations where it really must go on the current page. So I do enter some urgent items in C2 on the current page. I always follow the rule of clearing C2 before doing any work in C1, so if I've already started working C1, I stop doing that and move back to C2.
Anyway, this has really helped in making progress through the list more quickly.
The last couple days, I have been finding myself clearing C2 first, even before looking at the C1 tasks, and this has been working great. I decided I don't need my page timer anymore -- clearing C2 first makes it move really fast, all by itself, without any timer.
I also have adopted the "put urgent items in C2 of next page" rule as my standard practice, but I still do have situations where it really must go on the current page. So I do enter some urgent items in C2 on the current page. I always follow the rule of clearing C2 before doing any work in C1, so if I've already started working C1, I stop doing that and move back to C2.
Anyway, this has really helped in making progress through the list more quickly.
March 25, 2011 at 23:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Im finding this amendment gives me just a little bit too much resistance because I dont like HAVING to do the c2 stuff before the c1. What Im experimenting with at the moment is doing what youve said but not making it compulsory to finish c2 before starting c1. So I start working on a page at c2 instead of c1 but I dont HAVE to do any of the tasks then. That so far seems to be working well because it keeps the speeding up of getting throught the list and it also solves a problem I had that it might be ages before I got to the urgent items in c2 because I spent so long in c1. Its all a matter of getting the balancve right isnt it?
March 26, 2011 at 10:25 |
Meryl
Meryl
I gave this a go and was a little worried about how it would work out.
This is the scenario: I have a few things in C2 I am working on, and something urgent turns up. I have to get to it as soon as possible and it is recorded in the next page. This means I have to complete the C2's in the current page, do at least 1 item on C1 and get to my urgent item on the next page as soon as possible.
A couple of things became apparent. (a) Even urgent things can wait. I actually managed to get C2 things on the current page done or partially done and either complete them or move them to the next page; and (b) quickly get stuff done on C1 and C2 of the current page and move to the next page as soon as possible to get to my urgent task.
The process is making me more honest than I care to admit about my work. I have realised that matters are not so urgent that they can't wait until the current page is done before I get to the urgent work on the next page.
This might work if I have an escape hatch for absolutely crucial stuff that needs to be done now, which I think would be the common sense rule. But perhaps common sense is given more than its fair share of importance. I tried it, and my world did not blow up when I moved the task to the next page.
The variation is uncomfortable, but very alluring.
This is the scenario: I have a few things in C2 I am working on, and something urgent turns up. I have to get to it as soon as possible and it is recorded in the next page. This means I have to complete the C2's in the current page, do at least 1 item on C1 and get to my urgent item on the next page as soon as possible.
A couple of things became apparent. (a) Even urgent things can wait. I actually managed to get C2 things on the current page done or partially done and either complete them or move them to the next page; and (b) quickly get stuff done on C1 and C2 of the current page and move to the next page as soon as possible to get to my urgent task.
The process is making me more honest than I care to admit about my work. I have realised that matters are not so urgent that they can't wait until the current page is done before I get to the urgent work on the next page.
This might work if I have an escape hatch for absolutely crucial stuff that needs to be done now, which I think would be the common sense rule. But perhaps common sense is given more than its fair share of importance. I tried it, and my world did not blow up when I moved the task to the next page.
The variation is uncomfortable, but very alluring.
March 26, 2011 at 16:57 |
JD
JD
JD - My "common sense rule" for this situation is to enter REALLY urgent tasks in C2 on the current page -- but most of them go into C2 on the next page.
Mark says to count something as "urgent" and put it into C2 when you want to get to it before you normally would in the regular processing of the list. So, if it will take you 3 hours to get to the end of the list, and you want to action this thing in the next hour, then it goes into C2. With the variation that is the subject of this thread, it goes into C2 on the next page.
So, I just extend this idea a bit. If something is urgent, but I want to get to it before I'd normally get to the C2 items on the next page, then I put in into C2 on the current page. This allows me to do some things NOW -- write them down and do them immediately.
This has been working pretty well. And it's not really so much a "common sense override" (which generally really bother me) as an extension of the SF meaning of urgency.
Here's how I apply it:
(1) Consider putting the item at the end of the list. If this creates anxiety that I might not get to it fast enough, then ...
(2) Consider putting the item in C2 on the next page. If this creates anxiety that I might not get to it fast enough, then ...
(3) Put the item in C2 on the current page.
Mark says to count something as "urgent" and put it into C2 when you want to get to it before you normally would in the regular processing of the list. So, if it will take you 3 hours to get to the end of the list, and you want to action this thing in the next hour, then it goes into C2. With the variation that is the subject of this thread, it goes into C2 on the next page.
So, I just extend this idea a bit. If something is urgent, but I want to get to it before I'd normally get to the C2 items on the next page, then I put in into C2 on the current page. This allows me to do some things NOW -- write them down and do them immediately.
This has been working pretty well. And it's not really so much a "common sense override" (which generally really bother me) as an extension of the SF meaning of urgency.
Here's how I apply it:
(1) Consider putting the item at the end of the list. If this creates anxiety that I might not get to it fast enough, then ...
(2) Consider putting the item in C2 on the next page. If this creates anxiety that I might not get to it fast enough, then ...
(3) Put the item in C2 on the current page.
March 26, 2011 at 17:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I've been having much the same experience as Meryl, i.e. finding that being obliged to clear Column 2 before starting on Column 1 can spoil the flow of the system.
So I'm going to try out her suggestion of starting a visit to a page with Column 2 rather than Column 1, but not having to clear it before doing any Column 1 tasks.
So I'm going to try out her suggestion of starting a visit to a page with Column 2 rather than Column 1, but not having to clear it before doing any Column 1 tasks.
March 26, 2011 at 20:43 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I was able to try the variation (urgent in next page's C2, action all of C2 first) and I like it so far. It helps me focus on fewer items at a time, so I actually get my C2 items taken care of faster. When C2 is done, I have a strong incentive to turn the page, so I don't spend too much time on C1. It seems like I'm more likely to delete and/or dismiss C1 items, or leave them undone for now because they are lower priority to what's in C2 of the next page. I like it.
March 26, 2011 at 22:50 |
Don R
Don R
Just an update, I've not found Meryl's suggestion works for me, so I've gone back to testing the original variation (as proposed in the first post in this thread).
How are other people getting on with this?
How are other people getting on with this?
April 1, 2011 at 10:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I found "must finish first" too harsh, but "start with c2" is not bad. I think my favourite variation is to have no particular obligation. I.e. "start in either column. Usually the right choice is that which I wasn't just doing.
April 1, 2011 at 12:24 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Oddly enough, I have inadvertently been doing as Meryl suggested from the beginning. I use facing pages for my columns and accidentally started C1 on the right page, forcing me to put C2 on the left. That is my *only* change to the SF3 process; I still put urgent tasks on the current page instead of the next page. But I read left-to-right so I actually find it intuitive to have the more important stuff listed on the left to look at first.
April 1, 2011 at 16:05 |
jFenter
jFenter
Ditto what Alan said. And my set up is the same as jFenters purposefully because I knew I'd write more in C1, which is more comfortable on the right page and I'd be drawn to read the left page first so I put C2 there.
As to adding to C2 of the current or next page, I admit that since I work my SF lists in spurts, it depends where I am and what I envision the next few hours to look like. Most of the time when I put things into C2 of the following page, I find it's my intuition telling me that it's really not urgent, I would just like it done sooner than other things. If I end up having the time to keep working and power through the current and next page, it's fine. But if I run out of time or energy then the things that were put into C2 on the next page often aren't urgent the next time I pick up the list.
Just writing this is helping me with my thoughts. Thanks.
As to adding to C2 of the current or next page, I admit that since I work my SF lists in spurts, it depends where I am and what I envision the next few hours to look like. Most of the time when I put things into C2 of the following page, I find it's my intuition telling me that it's really not urgent, I would just like it done sooner than other things. If I end up having the time to keep working and power through the current and next page, it's fine. But if I run out of time or energy then the things that were put into C2 on the next page often aren't urgent the next time I pick up the list.
Just writing this is helping me with my thoughts. Thanks.
April 1, 2011 at 16:38 |
malisa
malisa
My set-up is the same as jFenter and Malisa - I use the right-hand side for C1 and left-hand side for C2 and have always read C2 before C1. I've tried the new variation as first described by Mark, then the variation suggested by Meryl, and I prefer the latter. I feel it's too restrictive to be forced to take some action on all the items in C2 before moving over to C1, and also feel it dilutes the 'standing out' intuitive feel of the original. However, so far the other variation of putting urgent stuff on the next page rather than the current page works for me. I really like SuperFocus, and want to give it a good testing, before deciding to stick with it or return to DWM, which I also really liked.
April 1, 2011 at 18:23 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
Mark, I'm following the rules of your new variation, with the exception that sometimes I do enter urgent items into C2 on the current page (as I described above, in my posted dated March 26, 2011 at 17:43).
I find it's working well. I am cycling through my list far more quickly and regularly than I ever did with AF, or DWM, and it seems to be reaching an equilibrium (in terms of a relatively constant number of active pages). Without the cycling, I never even have a chance to dismiss anything, so I am very glad it's actually working this way now, getting the full benefits of the system.
I'm not sure which I like better -- the "finish c2 before looking at c1" rule, or the "enforce a time limit per page" rule that I was trying. The former is much simpler but doesn't seem to be quite as effective for me. I was cycling even faster when I imposed a time limit.
Maybe I should just do both. :-)
I find it's working well. I am cycling through my list far more quickly and regularly than I ever did with AF, or DWM, and it seems to be reaching an equilibrium (in terms of a relatively constant number of active pages). Without the cycling, I never even have a chance to dismiss anything, so I am very glad it's actually working this way now, getting the full benefits of the system.
I'm not sure which I like better -- the "finish c2 before looking at c1" rule, or the "enforce a time limit per page" rule that I was trying. The former is much simpler but doesn't seem to be quite as effective for me. I was cycling even faster when I imposed a time limit.
Maybe I should just do both. :-)
April 1, 2011 at 19:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Some more thoughts on how the "must finish c2 before looking at c1" rule is working for me.
I usually have several items in c2 -- one or two large ongoing projects; one or two unfinished tasks of a smaller nature that didn't get finished the first time through (e.g., "clear email"); and a handful of urgent things, most of which were triggered by an Outlook reminder (e.g., "take vitamins", "water the garden", etc.).
I cycle through these till they are finished. There's usually at least one that I REALLY don't want to do, and they generally get left to the end. By then, the resistance has broken down and I'm able to do SOMETHING, at least. Usually more than I would have expected... So it does preserve most, if not all, of the "standing out" way of processing tasks.
Then I turn to the C1 tasks. But by that time, my mind is really churning on all the C2 projects that I just worked on and sent to the next page -- and a few more urgent things have gathered on the next page as well. I generally end up picking off all the quick and easy C1 tasks, but am hesitant to start new larger tasks since I know there's already enough stuff in C2 for now. I may start one or two things anyway, but far less than if I had started working the page in C1 as per the standard SF rules.
This has the effect of pushing me forward to the next page much more quickly than with the standard rules.
And this effect builds on itself. Since I'm moving faster, I'm likely to come back to those larger tasks on my current page pretty quickly. Since I am confident I'll see those tasks again soon, I am not worried about them getting left behind for days or weeks. This makes it even easier to skip over them for now and move forward. The next time around, they often seem like easy quick tasks, instead of large tasks. Not quite sure why that happens but it often does...
Sometimes I have fewer items in C2 than usual. In that case, I'm more likely to linger a bit longer on C1, and start up some larger tasks -- basically loading up C2 again. This isn't really a conscious thing -- it just happens.
So far I think this is the best rule I've seen for helping cycle through the list faster. It's very simple (unlike my timer idea, which always has me fussing with my online timer) and provides a very strong positive effect (moving faster) for very little cost (forcing oneself to do some C2 tasks that really don't "stand out" but just must be done).
I usually have several items in c2 -- one or two large ongoing projects; one or two unfinished tasks of a smaller nature that didn't get finished the first time through (e.g., "clear email"); and a handful of urgent things, most of which were triggered by an Outlook reminder (e.g., "take vitamins", "water the garden", etc.).
I cycle through these till they are finished. There's usually at least one that I REALLY don't want to do, and they generally get left to the end. By then, the resistance has broken down and I'm able to do SOMETHING, at least. Usually more than I would have expected... So it does preserve most, if not all, of the "standing out" way of processing tasks.
Then I turn to the C1 tasks. But by that time, my mind is really churning on all the C2 projects that I just worked on and sent to the next page -- and a few more urgent things have gathered on the next page as well. I generally end up picking off all the quick and easy C1 tasks, but am hesitant to start new larger tasks since I know there's already enough stuff in C2 for now. I may start one or two things anyway, but far less than if I had started working the page in C1 as per the standard SF rules.
This has the effect of pushing me forward to the next page much more quickly than with the standard rules.
And this effect builds on itself. Since I'm moving faster, I'm likely to come back to those larger tasks on my current page pretty quickly. Since I am confident I'll see those tasks again soon, I am not worried about them getting left behind for days or weeks. This makes it even easier to skip over them for now and move forward. The next time around, they often seem like easy quick tasks, instead of large tasks. Not quite sure why that happens but it often does...
Sometimes I have fewer items in C2 than usual. In that case, I'm more likely to linger a bit longer on C1, and start up some larger tasks -- basically loading up C2 again. This isn't really a conscious thing -- it just happens.
So far I think this is the best rule I've seen for helping cycle through the list faster. It's very simple (unlike my timer idea, which always has me fussing with my online timer) and provides a very strong positive effect (moving faster) for very little cost (forcing oneself to do some C2 tasks that really don't "stand out" but just must be done).
April 1, 2011 at 20:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Thanks for that insight Seraphim. It's really helpful to see it put through it's paces by someone who has a lot going on and has, in the past, struggling with moving slowly and worrying about not seeing things left at the end of the pages quickly enough.
This and my re-committment to dismissal should get me cranking again. Having a good day so far.
This and my re-committment to dismissal should get me cranking again. Having a good day so far.
April 1, 2011 at 20:23 |
malisa
malisa
Seraphim:
Thanks for a very useful couple of comments. I'm glad it's proving the best solution for you so far.
I had just gone back to the original variation as I said above when I had another idea for getting the balance right. What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2.
Unfinished tasks always go on the following page as before.
It sounds a bit complicated to describe but is in fact quite simple in practice. I'm only on Day 1 at the moment, but it's showing definite promise. I hope that its advantage will prove to be that it keeps urgent tasks more or less immediately accessible, while stopping them from delaying movement to the next page. So it should combine the advantages without the disadvantages of putting urgent tasks either on the same page or the next page,
Thanks for a very useful couple of comments. I'm glad it's proving the best solution for you so far.
I had just gone back to the original variation as I said above when I had another idea for getting the balance right. What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2.
Unfinished tasks always go on the following page as before.
It sounds a bit complicated to describe but is in fact quite simple in practice. I'm only on Day 1 at the moment, but it's showing definite promise. I hope that its advantage will prove to be that it keeps urgent tasks more or less immediately accessible, while stopping them from delaying movement to the next page. So it should combine the advantages without the disadvantages of putting urgent tasks either on the same page or the next page,
April 2, 2011 at 0:43 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, that makes sense... while you're working on C2, you can add to it. But once you've left it, it's temporarily closed.
I hadn't been purposefully always looking at C2 first, but as I thought about it I realized that usually C2 tasks stood out to me first when I reached a new page. I've gone one step further and sorted my Toodledo list such that C2 is at the top so those are the ones I get to first as I look at the page. I'm not requiring myself to check all C2 tasks off before moving on to C1 but I am looking at (and usually doing, based on a couple of hours' time this afternoon) them first. Maybe I'll try the "most close C2" version next week.
I hadn't been purposefully always looking at C2 first, but as I thought about it I realized that usually C2 tasks stood out to me first when I reached a new page. I've gone one step further and sorted my Toodledo list such that C2 is at the top so those are the ones I get to first as I look at the page. I'm not requiring myself to check all C2 tasks off before moving on to C1 but I am looking at (and usually doing, based on a couple of hours' time this afternoon) them first. Maybe I'll try the "most close C2" version next week.
April 2, 2011 at 1:47 |
Sarah
Sarah
Mark - Glad you found the comments useful!
Your new variation is appealing -- my first impression is that it will strike the right balance between urgency and moving forward (in that writing urgent items on the current-page C2 keeps you on the current page = not moving forward).
I will give it a try!
Your new variation is appealing -- my first impression is that it will strike the right balance between urgency and moving forward (in that writing urgent items on the current-page C2 keeps you on the current page = not moving forward).
I will give it a try!
April 2, 2011 at 2:13 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@Mark et al:
<<What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2. >>
To me, this is practical, but should not the 'common sense' rule always override one's current modus operandi?
One may have started C1 after clearing C2, but a REALLY urgent task should just be done regardless of whether one writes it down or not. There may be more than one 'REALLY' urgent tasks coming into view, so one writes down the second one in C2 - to capture it before it vanishes - and then gets cracking on the 'new' first priority urgent taks.
I think we all need to remember to heed the 'Common Sense' rule plus the need to wrtite tasks as practical 'next steps' and define them accordingly.
<<What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2. >>
To me, this is practical, but should not the 'common sense' rule always override one's current modus operandi?
One may have started C1 after clearing C2, but a REALLY urgent task should just be done regardless of whether one writes it down or not. There may be more than one 'REALLY' urgent tasks coming into view, so one writes down the second one in C2 - to capture it before it vanishes - and then gets cracking on the 'new' first priority urgent taks.
I think we all need to remember to heed the 'Common Sense' rule plus the need to wrtite tasks as practical 'next steps' and define them accordingly.
April 2, 2011 at 18:15 |
Roger J
Roger J
Roger J:
You don't need to use a "common sense rule" in the case you describe.
If you have started C1 you have already fulfilled the requirement to work on at least one task in C1 to avoid having to dismiss the entire page.
So you can write the really urgent task in C2 on the next page according to the normal rules and get to it at once.
Of course "immediate" tasks, such as leaving the building in case of fire, responding to a child's screams, answering the phone, serving the next customer, are never written down.
You don't need to use a "common sense rule" in the case you describe.
If you have started C1 you have already fulfilled the requirement to work on at least one task in C1 to avoid having to dismiss the entire page.
So you can write the really urgent task in C2 on the next page according to the normal rules and get to it at once.
Of course "immediate" tasks, such as leaving the building in case of fire, responding to a child's screams, answering the phone, serving the next customer, are never written down.
April 2, 2011 at 23:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<<< What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2. >>>
I've been trying this for a few days but it just isn't working for me. I went back to this:
(1) Consider putting the new task in C1 on last page -- if that feels good, great, put it there. But if it makes you anxious (won't get to it in time), then...
(2) Consider putting the new task in C2 on the next page -- if that feels good, great, put it there. But if it makes you anxious (won't get to it in time), then...
(3) Put the new task in C2 on the current page
All this "considering" takes about half a second in practice, but the result seems to be that the right level of urgency is assigned to each task.
<<< What I'm doing now is keeping the idea of having to clear C2 before starting C1. But with the difference that I enter urgent tasks on the current page's C2 until I've started on C1. If I've started on C1, then urgent tasks go on the next page's C2. >>>
I've been trying this for a few days but it just isn't working for me. I went back to this:
(1) Consider putting the new task in C1 on last page -- if that feels good, great, put it there. But if it makes you anxious (won't get to it in time), then...
(2) Consider putting the new task in C2 on the next page -- if that feels good, great, put it there. But if it makes you anxious (won't get to it in time), then...
(3) Put the new task in C2 on the current page
All this "considering" takes about half a second in practice, but the result seems to be that the right level of urgency is assigned to each task.
April 4, 2011 at 21:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, when I first saw your "three-tier" C2 technique (which you originally posted a while back), I didn't find it compelling, but I now realize I have essentially been doing it myself, as follows:
As I consider writing something in C2, my main question is, "Is it time to write this in C2 yet?" I.e., "Is this item 'urgent' in the sense of needing to be done on this page?"
Well, often that entails estimating how long I will be on this page. So I spot all the items that are likely to stand out in the next few passes and make my guess. If I think I'll be off the page soon, I delay: I keep the item in my head or on whatever project/3T list I found it on, waiting for the next page to turn. This makes the page turn sooner than if I'd written another task on it.
Had I been using your method, though, I could have written it on the next page immediately and saved myself the trouble of remembering it in between pages.
The way you've formulated the rules ("if it makes you anxious ...") strikes a chord too. It reminds me of the GTD principle that each project needs to be reviewed/managed just enough to stay off your mind. That was one of the GTD bits that really did work for me. Your SF analog seems to be that any task needs to be labeled sufficiently "urgent" to remove your anxiety about getting to it.
As I consider writing something in C2, my main question is, "Is it time to write this in C2 yet?" I.e., "Is this item 'urgent' in the sense of needing to be done on this page?"
Well, often that entails estimating how long I will be on this page. So I spot all the items that are likely to stand out in the next few passes and make my guess. If I think I'll be off the page soon, I delay: I keep the item in my head or on whatever project/3T list I found it on, waiting for the next page to turn. This makes the page turn sooner than if I'd written another task on it.
Had I been using your method, though, I could have written it on the next page immediately and saved myself the trouble of remembering it in between pages.
The way you've formulated the rules ("if it makes you anxious ...") strikes a chord too. It reminds me of the GTD principle that each project needs to be reviewed/managed just enough to stay off your mind. That was one of the GTD bits that really did work for me. Your SF analog seems to be that any task needs to be labeled sufficiently "urgent" to remove your anxiety about getting to it.
April 5, 2011 at 2:39 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie, yes, that's right. And actually that's my only criteria. Judging my anxiety level is extremely quick and seems to get the right level of urgency 99% of the time. If I made myself do an analysis of how many tasks were left on the page, etc., I'd make myself crazy. :-)
April 5, 2011 at 5:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
"If it makes me anxious to leave it at this level of priority" is a good way of describing how I filter things, too.
I also tried, "If moving this to a higher priority feels right," but I don't think that works as well. On optimistic days, it moves too many things to the higher lists.
Anxiety can also be used to decide when to work on each list. If you feel no anxiety about working on a lower-priority list, then do so. It means all the high-priority tasks are on schedule. If working on anything but the highest list causes anxiety, then stick to that short list until you're comfortable again.
It's important with this system to frequent review of the mid-priority lists. If you do that, you can safely park things there and concentrate on the short list. If not, you'll be tempted to put more things on the short list, which dilutes it.
The exact layering of my system varies. There's always a Someday/Maybe list for rare review, and there's always a half-page list that I refer to several times a day. Currently, the week-list is also serves as the daily list, but some days I need a separate day-list. Sometimes I like a month-list in the middle. The main danger is projects that change lists often. I spend more time restarting them than doing them. Mark's right about prioritizing projects that have been started over ones that haven't been.
I also tried, "If moving this to a higher priority feels right," but I don't think that works as well. On optimistic days, it moves too many things to the higher lists.
Anxiety can also be used to decide when to work on each list. If you feel no anxiety about working on a lower-priority list, then do so. It means all the high-priority tasks are on schedule. If working on anything but the highest list causes anxiety, then stick to that short list until you're comfortable again.
It's important with this system to frequent review of the mid-priority lists. If you do that, you can safely park things there and concentrate on the short list. If not, you'll be tempted to put more things on the short list, which dilutes it.
The exact layering of my system varies. There's always a Someday/Maybe list for rare review, and there's always a half-page list that I refer to several times a day. Currently, the week-list is also serves as the daily list, but some days I need a separate day-list. Sometimes I like a month-list in the middle. The main danger is projects that change lists often. I spend more time restarting them than doing them. Mark's right about prioritizing projects that have been started over ones that haven't been.
April 7, 2011 at 15:51 |
Cricket
Cricket
This is very important! When Urgency becomes fuzzy for me is when a deadline is far off, but the project is big. I feel anxiety about getting it started/continued, but if I take "urgency" too literally, then things like credit card statements jump in front of it too often, just because I haven't quantified the big project's urgency. It's an endless stream of, "I'll just get *that* little thing out of the way first ... and oh yes, that little thing too ..."
Using anxiety as an emotional barometer of "urgent" -- I think that is a powerful tool.
Using anxiety as an emotional barometer of "urgent" -- I think that is a powerful tool.
April 7, 2011 at 16:31 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie,
If the project is far-off, work backwards and set milestones. Some of them can be as simple as, "Find last year's tax file and this year's form. Put them in the same place." That's small enough to sneak in when you are avoiding something else, but will stall you nicely if it's the first step in a nasty project.
Often, projects require input from other people. An early milestone in Taxes is "Make a list of missing papers and start chasing."
Breaking projects into stages almost always increases the time estimate. It's usually more accurate. Even if you end up allotting too much time to the project, that's better than the alternative.
The great thing about milestones is that you know when you're on schedule. You can move it off the high-priority list for a while. Or, you know if you're behind and need to push harder for a few days. Your decisions are better informed.
I learned this when first planning multi-course meals. I also use it when keeping track of my kids' projects. Little and often works fairly well, but they over-emphasize the "little" part.
If the project is far-off, work backwards and set milestones. Some of them can be as simple as, "Find last year's tax file and this year's form. Put them in the same place." That's small enough to sneak in when you are avoiding something else, but will stall you nicely if it's the first step in a nasty project.
Often, projects require input from other people. An early milestone in Taxes is "Make a list of missing papers and start chasing."
Breaking projects into stages almost always increases the time estimate. It's usually more accurate. Even if you end up allotting too much time to the project, that's better than the alternative.
The great thing about milestones is that you know when you're on schedule. You can move it off the high-priority list for a while. Or, you know if you're behind and need to push harder for a few days. Your decisions are better informed.
I learned this when first planning multi-course meals. I also use it when keeping track of my kids' projects. Little and often works fairly well, but they over-emphasize the "little" part.
April 7, 2011 at 20:38 |
Cricket
Cricket
It re-introduces the idea of putting urgent tasks in Column 2 of the next page, rather than the current page.
In addition to this, there is a new rule that Column 2 must be cleared *before* starting on Column 1.
All other rules remain unchanged, including the dismissal rules.
Although not the purpose of this variation, it also has the effect of making it unnecessary to remember whether you have done any tasks in Column 1.
Anyone who wants to try this out is welcome to do so, and your comments will be welcome. Please stay on topic though.