Discussion Forum > Testing "Getting Results the Agile Way!"
It espouses focusing on results instead of focusing on tasks. This seems like an idea that's worthy of considerable thought.
Meier's system itself I can't speak to.
Meier's system itself I can't speak to.
October 30, 2011 at 16:16 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
One of the main idea is to focus on 3 tasks to work on each days/week/month/yr.
Idea you can find in this system to : http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/10/take-a-more-realistic-approach-to-your-to-do-list-with-the-3-2-rule/
/H.
Idea you can find in this system to : http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/10/take-a-more-realistic-approach-to-your-to-do-list-with-the-3-2-rule/
/H.
October 30, 2011 at 16:57 |
Henrik Ekenberg
Henrik Ekenberg
Hi,
I found on the site a How-To that explain this system with evernote.
http://gettingresults.com/wiki/How_To_-_Use_Getting_Results_the_Agile_Way_with_Evernote
I found on the site a How-To that explain this system with evernote.
http://gettingresults.com/wiki/How_To_-_Use_Getting_Results_the_Agile_Way_with_Evernote
October 30, 2011 at 17:13 |
Henrik Ekenberg
Henrik Ekenberg
I think I've come across many similar systems in the past. They sound good because they give the impression that all you have to do is three things and the rest of the day is spent in airy freedom. Of course the truth is that you've still got to do all the rest of the work, and the fact that you've no longer got everything on a list isn't going to help.
For me these systems always come unstuck because if the three things are the most important things I could be doing, they will be taking me out of my comfort zone. That means they come with a considerable charge of resistance built in.
In fact I'm quite capable of avoiding doing _one_ thing all day, let alone three!
For me these systems always come unstuck because if the three things are the most important things I could be doing, they will be taking me out of my comfort zone. That means they come with a considerable charge of resistance built in.
In fact I'm quite capable of avoiding doing _one_ thing all day, let alone three!
October 30, 2011 at 17:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
On a superficial look this seems to be a system that is about drivenness to achieve and "make it" so I imagine will have some of the shortcomings Mark identifies in http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/8/7/what-do-you-really-want-out-of-life.html or http://www.markforster.net/blog/2006/8/15/guilty-goals.html
The general point is that goals set by rationalisation or "ought-to's" or are imposed from ouside may imbue us with unconscious resistance. Another point is that goals can just as well be inner rather than outer focussed
This is put rather well in my opinion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzBVep04LXM&feature=related (no connection or affiliation on my part).
I should say I am in favour of goals, but in my view they need some filtering:
1. are they ought-to goals or imposed?
2. do I REALLY want what goes with them, what they will entail?
3. do I want to become who I will need to become to experience them?
4. are they just about "making it" or "flaunting acquisitions"?
As Mark has said, time management is really self management - directing attention and awarenes. More goals can be just "more work". Time management can be a feeling of time-shortage. It is better-defined as self-management. Time just IS. Your relationship to what could be done is key. This is why "standing out" and "dismissal" are so valuable. I often don't want more time or further goals but better time - more satisfaction, more productivity, less resistance.
The general point is that goals set by rationalisation or "ought-to's" or are imposed from ouside may imbue us with unconscious resistance. Another point is that goals can just as well be inner rather than outer focussed
This is put rather well in my opinion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzBVep04LXM&feature=related (no connection or affiliation on my part).
I should say I am in favour of goals, but in my view they need some filtering:
1. are they ought-to goals or imposed?
2. do I REALLY want what goes with them, what they will entail?
3. do I want to become who I will need to become to experience them?
4. are they just about "making it" or "flaunting acquisitions"?
As Mark has said, time management is really self management - directing attention and awarenes. More goals can be just "more work". Time management can be a feeling of time-shortage. It is better-defined as self-management. Time just IS. Your relationship to what could be done is key. This is why "standing out" and "dismissal" are so valuable. I often don't want more time or further goals but better time - more satisfaction, more productivity, less resistance.
October 30, 2011 at 17:40 |
michael
michael
Sorry maybe I gave a "to quick" picture of the system.
3 tasks is only one rule not all the system.
Testing this when I wait for Marks new system....
3 tasks is only one rule not all the system.
Testing this when I wait for Marks new system....
October 30, 2011 at 19:31 |
Henrik Ekenberg
Henrik Ekenberg
Henrik:
I read Meier's summary of the book before posting my remarks so I don't think I was under any false impressions about the system.
I read Meier's summary of the book before posting my remarks so I don't think I was under any false impressions about the system.
October 30, 2011 at 20:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I used the weekly plan-do-review cycle with 3 results identified for the week. I used this format together with the GSD (Getting Sh_t Done) system but leaving out the master list.Trying to do anymore of the methodology detailed in the book felt too complicated.
I gave up on it as I found it on the most part very difficult to identify clear results that I could achieve within the weekly cycle. Particularly for those results that are partly dependant upon other people doing, which could delay and frustrate. 'Completing 3 workouts' however was a regular result I could write down and achieve.
In summary, I liked the plan-do-review cycle and aiming for 3 weekly results but found it quite difficult & 'non intuitive' to do in practise.
I gave up on it as I found it on the most part very difficult to identify clear results that I could achieve within the weekly cycle. Particularly for those results that are partly dependant upon other people doing, which could delay and frustrate. 'Completing 3 workouts' however was a regular result I could write down and achieve.
In summary, I liked the plan-do-review cycle and aiming for 3 weekly results but found it quite difficult & 'non intuitive' to do in practise.
October 30, 2011 at 20:59 |
leon
leon
I have come across this book before. It has many similarities to my DOIT system as we both mention the Marine Corp Rule of three. I tended to use this rule more for lomger term goals but there is no reason it could not apply to time management. I do think a focus on results can be good as most of us know the tasks we need to do to make the result come true. I will read the entire book. Thanks for posting
October 31, 2011 at 0:12 |
Gerry
Gerry
Gerry:
<< I have come across this book before. It has many similarities to my DOIT system as we both mention the Marine Corp Rule of three. >>
Surely when the Marines talk about a rule of three the context is organizational, e.g. there are three platoons in a company, three companies in a battalion, etc? This is fairly standard military organization - the British Army follows the same pattern, and probably many others.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/command.htm
I've never been able to find any official Marine Corps reference to a Rule of Three in any other context.
P.S. In the 19th Century when the British Army built and maintained an empire encompassing a third of the globe, there were eight companies to a battalion. As the British Empire declined the number of companies was reduced to four and then to three. Maybe there's a moral there!
<< I have come across this book before. It has many similarities to my DOIT system as we both mention the Marine Corp Rule of three. >>
Surely when the Marines talk about a rule of three the context is organizational, e.g. there are three platoons in a company, three companies in a battalion, etc? This is fairly standard military organization - the British Army follows the same pattern, and probably many others.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/command.htm
I've never been able to find any official Marine Corps reference to a Rule of Three in any other context.
P.S. In the 19th Century when the British Army built and maintained an empire encompassing a third of the globe, there were eight companies to a battalion. As the British Empire declined the number of companies was reduced to four and then to three. Maybe there's a moral there!
October 31, 2011 at 16:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark,
I took it in the context of this article, where they mention a Marine has three things to worry about. It seems to indicate at the soldier level almost a to do list like context.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/19980401/906.html
Thanks
I took it in the context of this article, where they mention a Marine has three things to worry about. It seems to indicate at the soldier level almost a to do list like context.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/19980401/906.html
Thanks
October 31, 2011 at 17:51 |
Gerry
Gerry
Agile Results has been mentioned here on and off a number of times. Each time I hopped over to the website and decided it's not for me.
I reread parts of Agile Results again recently and discovered that Meier is not a totalitarian in the sense that he requires one to embrace his system in all of its many facets. There are moments when he explicitly encourages readers to continue to use their own time management approaches that they have already established.
So here I am. I like FV and have every intention of continuing to use it. I have also been using for a couple of years a free app called TaskSmash.com to give myself goals for the day.
The thing is, my use of TaskSmash was never very serious. Reading Meier, I realized that I could continue to use FV, to ensure that all the minutiae is being tracked and doesn't get out of hand. And I could continue to use TaskSmash, to ensure that the important stuff gets real focus, but with the addition that TaskSmash will list exactly three daily outcomes that, if I were to imagine my workday ending, I would be pleased to know that I had accomplished.
I also have been using a Franklin Covey paper planner for more than a decade (Metropolitan Classic, if anyone cares) and it has a Weekly Compass, upon which I have always written my goals for the upcoming week.
Again, I was never very serious about this. I would see my weekly goals every day, because my planner sits in front of me on my desk all the time. But more often than not, those weekly goals were not written as concrete outcomes, and, more often than not, the week would end and not much progress would have been made.
I now put some more thought into it and limit myself to exactly three weekly goals expressed as outcomes. Each morning when I create my three daily goals, I check to see if it makes sense to connect those daily goals to the weekly goals.
This has helped me so much that I created three monthly goals for November. This was a completely new experience for me, since I have never before had monthly goals.
I have done annual goals for years, but again, my success in that area has been mixed (my favorite book for this had been Your Best Year Yet).
I have also created 5-year plans, again without much success.
But Meier's idea of picking three (yes, and Gerry's too!) seems to have made the difference for me. I really have a lot more focus. I have made it crystal clear what I need to do to count my day a success. And now for the last three weeks all my days and all my weeks have been successes.
It has often been said that setting limits and boundaries can increase freedom and creativity. Perhaps that explains my recent leap in effectiveness. the magic seems to lie in the fact that I have to get three things done. In the past, I often tended to have more than three.
Mark's point, above, that if I only do three important things, and let the maintenance work slide, I will have bigger problems down the ride, is, of course, correct. And that is where FV works so well (or one could use the other AFs).
I know from Mark's writings that he is not very fond of overplanning. I share his concern. I have no idea if it makes good sense to set three monthly goals or three annual goals. It very well might not. It might be too rigid and inflexible. I do know, however, that setting three daily and weekly goals has not been restrictive at all. Instead I feel liberated.
I reread parts of Agile Results again recently and discovered that Meier is not a totalitarian in the sense that he requires one to embrace his system in all of its many facets. There are moments when he explicitly encourages readers to continue to use their own time management approaches that they have already established.
So here I am. I like FV and have every intention of continuing to use it. I have also been using for a couple of years a free app called TaskSmash.com to give myself goals for the day.
The thing is, my use of TaskSmash was never very serious. Reading Meier, I realized that I could continue to use FV, to ensure that all the minutiae is being tracked and doesn't get out of hand. And I could continue to use TaskSmash, to ensure that the important stuff gets real focus, but with the addition that TaskSmash will list exactly three daily outcomes that, if I were to imagine my workday ending, I would be pleased to know that I had accomplished.
I also have been using a Franklin Covey paper planner for more than a decade (Metropolitan Classic, if anyone cares) and it has a Weekly Compass, upon which I have always written my goals for the upcoming week.
Again, I was never very serious about this. I would see my weekly goals every day, because my planner sits in front of me on my desk all the time. But more often than not, those weekly goals were not written as concrete outcomes, and, more often than not, the week would end and not much progress would have been made.
I now put some more thought into it and limit myself to exactly three weekly goals expressed as outcomes. Each morning when I create my three daily goals, I check to see if it makes sense to connect those daily goals to the weekly goals.
This has helped me so much that I created three monthly goals for November. This was a completely new experience for me, since I have never before had monthly goals.
I have done annual goals for years, but again, my success in that area has been mixed (my favorite book for this had been Your Best Year Yet).
I have also created 5-year plans, again without much success.
But Meier's idea of picking three (yes, and Gerry's too!) seems to have made the difference for me. I really have a lot more focus. I have made it crystal clear what I need to do to count my day a success. And now for the last three weeks all my days and all my weeks have been successes.
It has often been said that setting limits and boundaries can increase freedom and creativity. Perhaps that explains my recent leap in effectiveness. the magic seems to lie in the fact that I have to get three things done. In the past, I often tended to have more than three.
Mark's point, above, that if I only do three important things, and let the maintenance work slide, I will have bigger problems down the ride, is, of course, correct. And that is where FV works so well (or one could use the other AFs).
I know from Mark's writings that he is not very fond of overplanning. I share his concern. I have no idea if it makes good sense to set three monthly goals or three annual goals. It very well might not. It might be too rigid and inflexible. I do know, however, that setting three daily and weekly goals has not been restrictive at all. Instead I feel liberated.
November 11, 2012 at 20:13 |
moises
moises
I find I have had a similar experience to you Moises
I have been using FV regularily since mark published the rules. It's great and as far as a means of parsing a long list of tasks, the best for me. I was doing normal passes daily and a 'resistance pass' a couple of times a week also.
The issue that I have struggled with again recently is the volume of 'incoming' tasks. Working for a large organisation on 8 different projects with global teams I t's very easy to get into a mode of reacting to all this flak, and I have found my FV list was just becoming too large or slow to process.
I then started a regular list review (weekly) to try and trim FVlist to what needs to be considered in the next 2 weeks. The problem I found was that I was spending time considering project dependencies to determin urgency / relative importance in order to create this shortened list. (Items removed were placed on a backlog list).
The other thing I found was that when the flak density was high my assessment of 'what do I want to do before x' tended to shift focus (subconsciously) onto how to keep folk off my back so I could do some real work... Ie was too reactionary .. I then ended up a few days later with pressure building on the more important items, which of course came into focus using FV, but with a good degree of panic as deadlines loomed.
What I have recently been working with however is a combo agile results /fv hybrid, and am so far finding it quite successful.
Following agile result (ARR3) principles I set up monthly goals, weekly and daily outcomes, all connected to provide line of sight to the more strategic needs of the projects, company and my life. I do the 3 daily MITS first (defining these at the start of each day).. All are time bound using pomodoro timer to stop time creep. Once these are done I revert to fv for the rest of the day to keep all the other items moving knowing that the strategic stuff has been taken care of (or at least progressed) for the day. I also capture any ' incoming' in fv as normal. I have a personal daily guideline to process 3 MITS and 1-3 FV chains a day depending on number of meetings. If I do this I'm happy with my day.
Also the other aspects of ARR3 such as daily and weekly reflections are very valuable and help to reinforce the behaviours that get results and minimise those that don't . These insights are slowly creeping into my FV list selection decisions
Great thing about both these systems are simple and easily doable on paper. In fact I often just make the 3 daily outcomes /MITS 3 items on my Fv list ( and make sure I cycle round them till done). Other times when I feel overwhelmed I keep the 3 MITS and weekly outcomes separated so I have a simple uncluttered reference view to steer me and help provide a sense of clarity, and use my trusted Fv list to give me confidence that the other items are being dealt with also.
I need to work this for longer before I can confirm how well it works, but after several weeks I am starting to feel a more in control, slightly clearer, more focused and just a little less mad!,.. The flak is being dealt with and my larger targets are being worked towards.
Currently I feel that ARR3 and FV are complementary if used in this way. Both are great systems and both are simple( note that ARR3 is simple in principle and does not have to all be implemented.. You can start with the basics and cherry pick other aspects that work for you)
Anyway, time to review my day .......
I have been using FV regularily since mark published the rules. It's great and as far as a means of parsing a long list of tasks, the best for me. I was doing normal passes daily and a 'resistance pass' a couple of times a week also.
The issue that I have struggled with again recently is the volume of 'incoming' tasks. Working for a large organisation on 8 different projects with global teams I t's very easy to get into a mode of reacting to all this flak, and I have found my FV list was just becoming too large or slow to process.
I then started a regular list review (weekly) to try and trim FVlist to what needs to be considered in the next 2 weeks. The problem I found was that I was spending time considering project dependencies to determin urgency / relative importance in order to create this shortened list. (Items removed were placed on a backlog list).
The other thing I found was that when the flak density was high my assessment of 'what do I want to do before x' tended to shift focus (subconsciously) onto how to keep folk off my back so I could do some real work... Ie was too reactionary .. I then ended up a few days later with pressure building on the more important items, which of course came into focus using FV, but with a good degree of panic as deadlines loomed.
What I have recently been working with however is a combo agile results /fv hybrid, and am so far finding it quite successful.
Following agile result (ARR3) principles I set up monthly goals, weekly and daily outcomes, all connected to provide line of sight to the more strategic needs of the projects, company and my life. I do the 3 daily MITS first (defining these at the start of each day).. All are time bound using pomodoro timer to stop time creep. Once these are done I revert to fv for the rest of the day to keep all the other items moving knowing that the strategic stuff has been taken care of (or at least progressed) for the day. I also capture any ' incoming' in fv as normal. I have a personal daily guideline to process 3 MITS and 1-3 FV chains a day depending on number of meetings. If I do this I'm happy with my day.
Also the other aspects of ARR3 such as daily and weekly reflections are very valuable and help to reinforce the behaviours that get results and minimise those that don't . These insights are slowly creeping into my FV list selection decisions
Great thing about both these systems are simple and easily doable on paper. In fact I often just make the 3 daily outcomes /MITS 3 items on my Fv list ( and make sure I cycle round them till done). Other times when I feel overwhelmed I keep the 3 MITS and weekly outcomes separated so I have a simple uncluttered reference view to steer me and help provide a sense of clarity, and use my trusted Fv list to give me confidence that the other items are being dealt with also.
I need to work this for longer before I can confirm how well it works, but after several weeks I am starting to feel a more in control, slightly clearer, more focused and just a little less mad!,.. The flak is being dealt with and my larger targets are being worked towards.
Currently I feel that ARR3 and FV are complementary if used in this way. Both are great systems and both are simple( note that ARR3 is simple in principle and does not have to all be implemented.. You can start with the basics and cherry pick other aspects that work for you)
Anyway, time to review my day .......
June 18, 2014 at 23:27 |
Grik
Grik
Are you still going strong with FV and Agile Results, Grik? I'm curious to know about your progress :).
July 8, 2014 at 10:05 |
TijlK
TijlK
On my initial read, this did seem to be about only do 3 things. I tried, but found I was not able to do that. Although exercise was useful, did help me focus on reduce from really much too long list.
That turned me off to this system. Recently I came across another shorter summary of this. (learn in 7 days instead of 30 days) Not sure if he has changed method or rather is trying to make it more understandable. It now clearly says is not just 3 things. More about, have a list and also figure out what the must do items per day are. Nothing new there. What feels useful to me, is the grouping of this into ever larger time chunks, day, week, month, year - to connect from short to long view across time.
Some quotes and link to articles below. Quotes specifically from day 2.
http://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jmeier/2014/03/24/7-days-of-agile-results-a-time-management-boot-camp-for-productivity-on-fire/
Also, if anyone interested, my impression from reviews is the book is a horrible mess. The best way to learn about his systems IS to try the shorter online summaries. This 7 days and the longer 30.
http://www.30daysofgettingresults.com/
----------
Step 1 – Write Down Your List of Important Things for This week
Step 2 – Write Down 3 Wins that You Want to Accomplish for This Week
Now, at the top of your list, write down 3 things that you really want to accomplish for this week. These will be the goals that remind you what’s important throughout the week.
Do I have many, many other things to also accomplish? You bet. But if I achieve those 3 goals, then I will have accomplished my most important results.
It’s also worth pointing out that each of those goals has a lot of steps and sub-steps and activities within them. The point is that I’m not tracking tasks. I’m focusing on outcomes. and I let my brain do what it does best, which is figure out the right tasks as I go, as I’m working towards each outcome.
One thing to keep in mind is that it’s not that you are limiting yourself to “3 things.” It’s achieving 3 Wins. You are focusing on achieving 3 significant outcomes that matter each day, and each week.
That turned me off to this system. Recently I came across another shorter summary of this. (learn in 7 days instead of 30 days) Not sure if he has changed method or rather is trying to make it more understandable. It now clearly says is not just 3 things. More about, have a list and also figure out what the must do items per day are. Nothing new there. What feels useful to me, is the grouping of this into ever larger time chunks, day, week, month, year - to connect from short to long view across time.
Some quotes and link to articles below. Quotes specifically from day 2.
http://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jmeier/2014/03/24/7-days-of-agile-results-a-time-management-boot-camp-for-productivity-on-fire/
Also, if anyone interested, my impression from reviews is the book is a horrible mess. The best way to learn about his systems IS to try the shorter online summaries. This 7 days and the longer 30.
http://www.30daysofgettingresults.com/
----------
Step 1 – Write Down Your List of Important Things for This week
Step 2 – Write Down 3 Wins that You Want to Accomplish for This Week
Now, at the top of your list, write down 3 things that you really want to accomplish for this week. These will be the goals that remind you what’s important throughout the week.
Do I have many, many other things to also accomplish? You bet. But if I achieve those 3 goals, then I will have accomplished my most important results.
It’s also worth pointing out that each of those goals has a lot of steps and sub-steps and activities within them. The point is that I’m not tracking tasks. I’m focusing on outcomes. and I let my brain do what it does best, which is figure out the right tasks as I go, as I’m working towards each outcome.
One thing to keep in mind is that it’s not that you are limiting yourself to “3 things.” It’s achieving 3 Wins. You are focusing on achieving 3 significant outcomes that matter each day, and each week.
March 7, 2016 at 16:55 |
matthewS
matthewS
I found this "e-book" ( free on the net ) and I like the idea in it.
Main page
http://gettingresults.com/wiki/Main_Page
About this system on Lifehack
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/productivity-system-overview-getting-results-the-agile-way.html
Have you test it ?