Discussion Forum > Backlog management
Alan - I liked Mark's physical-inbox analogy. At some point you cry "Uncle!" and take all the paperwork in the inbox and put it in a pile to be worked through separately. You return to it as you can until it's cleared, but it's more like working a project. Now you manage the inbox (with a strategy that works). But you still only have two things - the inbox and the pile. I'm not sure how your midlog fits into this analogy. Would you set another tray next to the inbox and label it 'midbox'? What would be in the midbox, nonurgent items? And the inbox would hold new items and items you've determined to be urgent?
November 15, 2011 at 21:35 |
Zane
Zane
My "midlog" is a very small backlog that you dive on quickly to clear out. The backlog is what you called the "pile to be worked through separately". Working on that is indeed a project all of its own.
Consider nuntym's system: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1607095
Description of the system, #1:
<<1) Undefined items, no matter when they were written on the system, can be acted upon anytime, but there can be NO undefined items older than seven days. All items older than seven days are dismissed. Undefined items, in my notation, are preceded with a small dot (∙).>>
In this case, after 7 days, you dismiss stuff. On a good week, everything you enter on Monday is actioned by the following Monday (or deleted or filed), and nothing is left to dismiss. On a bad week, things will be dismissed.
My proposal is to be very aggressive about dismissing, and aggressive about reviewing the dismissed stuff. This is what I'm calling a midlog. In the Paper Inbox analogy, it's taking the bottom 10 pages of the stack, and deciding for each what should be done about it.
Consider nuntym's system: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1607095
Description of the system, #1:
<<1) Undefined items, no matter when they were written on the system, can be acted upon anytime, but there can be NO undefined items older than seven days. All items older than seven days are dismissed. Undefined items, in my notation, are preceded with a small dot (∙).>>
In this case, after 7 days, you dismiss stuff. On a good week, everything you enter on Monday is actioned by the following Monday (or deleted or filed), and nothing is left to dismiss. On a bad week, things will be dismissed.
My proposal is to be very aggressive about dismissing, and aggressive about reviewing the dismissed stuff. This is what I'm calling a midlog. In the Paper Inbox analogy, it's taking the bottom 10 pages of the stack, and deciding for each what should be done about it.
November 15, 2011 at 22:36 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
This reminds me of a "three-tier AutoFocus" system I keep coming back to mentally but have not yet actually tried. It goes like this:
- Keep a regular AF notebook for input.
- Keep a separate AF notebook for urgent/unfinished. You might call it your "Column 2 notebook."
- Keep a "Someday" AF notebook for dismissals from the main notebook.
The general idea is that the main notebook is a middle tier, from where items can be promoted to Urgent/Unfinished or demoted to Someday.
You would keep the first two notebooks open side by side, forming something like an SF display, except I would not make a strict rule about when to turn each page. Just work through both displayed pages and when one of them has had enough for now, flip it.
When reviewing older pages in the main notebook, and coming to those items that are a long way off (future books to read, a place to vacation next summer, since you've already booked this summer, etc.), move them out of your way into the Someday book. The Someday book gets reviewed occasionally (monthly? quarterly?) and has no time-pressured items. Any far-future deadlines would have to be noted on a calendar, not the Someday book.
As I said, I haven't tried it. It comes to mind whenever my notebooks bog down, but so far I've always come across some other recommendation/tweak/variation to try before getting to this one.
- Keep a regular AF notebook for input.
- Keep a separate AF notebook for urgent/unfinished. You might call it your "Column 2 notebook."
- Keep a "Someday" AF notebook for dismissals from the main notebook.
The general idea is that the main notebook is a middle tier, from where items can be promoted to Urgent/Unfinished or demoted to Someday.
You would keep the first two notebooks open side by side, forming something like an SF display, except I would not make a strict rule about when to turn each page. Just work through both displayed pages and when one of them has had enough for now, flip it.
When reviewing older pages in the main notebook, and coming to those items that are a long way off (future books to read, a place to vacation next summer, since you've already booked this summer, etc.), move them out of your way into the Someday book. The Someday book gets reviewed occasionally (monthly? quarterly?) and has no time-pressured items. Any far-future deadlines would have to be noted on a calendar, not the Someday book.
As I said, I haven't tried it. It comes to mind whenever my notebooks bog down, but so far I've always come across some other recommendation/tweak/variation to try before getting to this one.
November 16, 2011 at 4:43 |
Bernie
Bernie
Your idea is similar, and (it seems) much closer to the Inbox system Zane mentioned.
My experience with the Someday book is that it was equivalent to an overstuffed Never book. Regular scanning through that stuff would make that better, but I prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book.
My experience with separating unfinished/new is positive, but I see no reason to make two books of it. Alternating pages or something like that can work instead.
So I have two books. A small one with current and new stuff, and a big one with organized/planned/upcoming stuff. And I have my old book as a backlog, but I'm weeding that down. (Multiply by 2, for home and work systems.)
My experience with the Someday book is that it was equivalent to an overstuffed Never book. Regular scanning through that stuff would make that better, but I prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book.
My experience with separating unfinished/new is positive, but I see no reason to make two books of it. Alternating pages or something like that can work instead.
So I have two books. A small one with current and new stuff, and a big one with organized/planned/upcoming stuff. And I have my old book as a backlog, but I'm weeding that down. (Multiply by 2, for home and work systems.)
November 16, 2011 at 19:21 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Hi Alan - This post caught my eye today as I have been thinking about the idea of getting rid of a separate "Someday" book ("equivalent to an overstuffed Never Book", as you put it). Bernie's idea seems reasonable, though; you have your main book and either hit an item to the left (urgent/active), or to the right (Someday).
You came back and said that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".
Referring to your two books discussed above: "…one with current and new stuff, and a big one with organized/planned/upcoming stuff."
On your first book (Actives), I assume this is not your "Main Book", and I also assume that this contains unfinished items (as well as current and new), and also your Day Plan discussed in your previous system descriptions. (I also assume you have your separate calendars/agenda/hard items.)
I also like your "alternating pages" idea. It may be obvious, but here I assume you mean alternating pages of current/new and unfinished. It might sound trivial, but these are simple, but key, simplification methods, I believe.
Referring to your second book ("organized/planned/upcoming"), this is surely your "Midlog/Buffer Zone" Book, and your "Main Book".
Your comments on this second book dealt with "keeping empty", "not working tasks here", "where everything gets deleted, reassessed, or filed in a few passes", and being "very aggressive about dismissing, and aggressive about reviewing the dismissed stuff".
This is all great stuff to consider, Alan, and it is greatly appreciated. What I have read so far, though, is all about being agressive and clearing out all that you have described (even your backlogs).
But what about Bernie's comments on the long-term and Someday items? (Again, your comment that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".) I have tons of things that are important but not on the front burners.
This two-books-vs.-three-books discussed in this thread may be tweaks, but valuable ones in terms of "moving along" and avoiding the dreaded, "Never Book", in my opinon. Thanks for any further clarifications. They are always valuable.
You came back and said that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".
Referring to your two books discussed above: "…one with current and new stuff, and a big one with organized/planned/upcoming stuff."
On your first book (Actives), I assume this is not your "Main Book", and I also assume that this contains unfinished items (as well as current and new), and also your Day Plan discussed in your previous system descriptions. (I also assume you have your separate calendars/agenda/hard items.)
I also like your "alternating pages" idea. It may be obvious, but here I assume you mean alternating pages of current/new and unfinished. It might sound trivial, but these are simple, but key, simplification methods, I believe.
Referring to your second book ("organized/planned/upcoming"), this is surely your "Midlog/Buffer Zone" Book, and your "Main Book".
Your comments on this second book dealt with "keeping empty", "not working tasks here", "where everything gets deleted, reassessed, or filed in a few passes", and being "very aggressive about dismissing, and aggressive about reviewing the dismissed stuff".
This is all great stuff to consider, Alan, and it is greatly appreciated. What I have read so far, though, is all about being agressive and clearing out all that you have described (even your backlogs).
But what about Bernie's comments on the long-term and Someday items? (Again, your comment that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".) I have tons of things that are important but not on the front burners.
This two-books-vs.-three-books discussed in this thread may be tweaks, but valuable ones in terms of "moving along" and avoiding the dreaded, "Never Book", in my opinon. Thanks for any further clarifications. They are always valuable.
November 17, 2011 at 13:00 |
BKK
BKK
Hello BKK.
Main (pocket sized) book contents:
Active, new and midlog - as an AF type system. Active and new may be integrated or separated (e.g. by alternating pages).
Day plan
Daily routines checklist
calendar / scheduled items (work)
Project book contents:
calendar / scheduled items (home)
projects - including all tasks planned for later.
backlog - unplanned, unorganized stuff. All soon to be planned, organized, activated, or deleted.
I hope soon the backlog won't exist, due to aggressive purging. In future I may take the same tactic to pruning projects.
<<But what about Bernie's comments on the long-term and Someday items? (Again, your comment that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".) I have tons of things that are important but not on the front burners.>>
This may be old news to many here, but it's new to my practice. Just dismissing stuff and slowly going through it was unsatisfactory. Just organizing dismissed stuff was unsatisfactory. So now I'm attempting to go quickly through dismissed stuff, process them down, and keep tabs on projects in the active AF list.
I believe I can have a short AF list even while it keeps tabs on active projects. Inactive projects can be tied to active projects, or to a calendar. Haven't proven this yet.
Main (pocket sized) book contents:
Active, new and midlog - as an AF type system. Active and new may be integrated or separated (e.g. by alternating pages).
Day plan
Daily routines checklist
calendar / scheduled items (work)
Project book contents:
calendar / scheduled items (home)
projects - including all tasks planned for later.
backlog - unplanned, unorganized stuff. All soon to be planned, organized, activated, or deleted.
I hope soon the backlog won't exist, due to aggressive purging. In future I may take the same tactic to pruning projects.
<<But what about Bernie's comments on the long-term and Someday items? (Again, your comment that you "prefer a structured system actively tied to the main book".) I have tons of things that are important but not on the front burners.>>
This may be old news to many here, but it's new to my practice. Just dismissing stuff and slowly going through it was unsatisfactory. Just organizing dismissed stuff was unsatisfactory. So now I'm attempting to go quickly through dismissed stuff, process them down, and keep tabs on projects in the active AF list.
I believe I can have a short AF list even while it keeps tabs on active projects. Inactive projects can be tied to active projects, or to a calendar. Haven't proven this yet.
November 17, 2011 at 16:04 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan - thanks again for your comments. I am now finding that anything but basic prioritisation is counter-productive. I know you have alluded to this before, but I find that if the Day Plan is abused (too big), it doesn't work.
Sometimes I think there is confusion with the term "Project List". For me, it is a list of projects; for others, I think it is a list of tasks for a project.
In any event, I have found that the over-use of project task lists can turn into lists like the old Someday Items Lists. So, separate project tasks "when necessary" work fine, but for me, too many lists turn into bloated lists with items falling through the cracks. This is why I like your Backlog comments in recent weeks (and is what I think you mean by "a structured system actively tied in" with your AF system).
This is also what I think you meant by, "...old news to many here, but it's new to my practice." Here, you are referring to the idea of having a Someday Items List at all (i.e., you never considered it)?
With regard to your statement, "I can have a short AF list even while it keeps tabs on active projects", what about Dismissal? It seems like you would need a faster way to sift out unwanted items to comply with this (i.e., individually dismissing items, vs. not).
Anyway, things are a lot cleaner now with the help from this forum. Balance and large items are going better, and there are less tweaks and side lists.
Sometimes I think there is confusion with the term "Project List". For me, it is a list of projects; for others, I think it is a list of tasks for a project.
In any event, I have found that the over-use of project task lists can turn into lists like the old Someday Items Lists. So, separate project tasks "when necessary" work fine, but for me, too many lists turn into bloated lists with items falling through the cracks. This is why I like your Backlog comments in recent weeks (and is what I think you mean by "a structured system actively tied in" with your AF system).
This is also what I think you meant by, "...old news to many here, but it's new to my practice." Here, you are referring to the idea of having a Someday Items List at all (i.e., you never considered it)?
With regard to your statement, "I can have a short AF list even while it keeps tabs on active projects", what about Dismissal? It seems like you would need a faster way to sift out unwanted items to comply with this (i.e., individually dismissing items, vs. not).
Anyway, things are a lot cleaner now with the help from this forum. Balance and large items are going better, and there are less tweaks and side lists.
November 21, 2011 at 14:40 |
BKK
BKK
After I posted the above, I went looking around and found these relevant comments in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1634312 concerning dated (or forced) dismissal.:
Alan: "Dates: I don't mind dating, but I didn't like DWM's waterfall. Ironically I've put it back into my system: After two days, everything is on notice to shift to the backlog. I give myself one chance to rescue stuff, and the rest goes away for about week as I cycle around the backlog."
Alan: "Dates: I don't mind dating, but I didn't like DWM's waterfall. Ironically I've put it back into my system: After two days, everything is on notice to shift to the backlog. I give myself one chance to rescue stuff, and the rest goes away for about week as I cycle around the backlog."
November 21, 2011 at 15:01 |
BKK
BKK
(Because of poor Intenet here, my post posted twice, so I am dividing up Alan and Mark's comments into two.) (From same thread as above.)
Mark: "The only time you should delete a task _before_ the forced dismissal is if it becomes totally obvious that the task is no longer relevant for whatever reason. Otherwise tasks should be left in the list. It's the job of the dismissal process to get rid of them".
"Similarly the _only_ criteria for whether a task should be done or not is whether it stands out or not. Tasks which haven't stood out by the dismissal date are dismissed - end of story".
Mark: "The only time you should delete a task _before_ the forced dismissal is if it becomes totally obvious that the task is no longer relevant for whatever reason. Otherwise tasks should be left in the list. It's the job of the dismissal process to get rid of them".
"Similarly the _only_ criteria for whether a task should be done or not is whether it stands out or not. Tasks which haven't stood out by the dismissal date are dismissed - end of story".
November 21, 2011 at 15:02 |
BKK
BKK
I agree with everything you quoted, Mark's and my comments, except this:"the rest goes away for about week". I now feel such should not be ignored for more than 2 or 3 days.
<<"...old news to many here, but it's new to my practice." Here, you are referring to the idea of having a Someday Items List at all (i.e., you never considered it)?>>
The opposite: I have long had a Someday Items List, and now I don't. The old news was about dismissing items and reviewing dismissed items. That is most important.
<<"...old news to many here, but it's new to my practice." Here, you are referring to the idea of having a Someday Items List at all (i.e., you never considered it)?>>
The opposite: I have long had a Someday Items List, and now I don't. The old news was about dismissing items and reviewing dismissed items. That is most important.
November 21, 2011 at 16:05 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Thanks Alan- I think I am "all set" now as they say a lot in the northeast (and maybe in Canada). I have really come a lonnnnnng way - my 'stuff' was getting serious. Scanning, my alternative to OneNote (Mac), and these posts (you, Mark, avrum, Jupiter (a real Mac guy), Sarah (the Free-Form notebook and indices were liberating), Gerry (so smart with his one-place ideas), and many others, have been entertaining and just plain informative... (maybe "insightful" is a better word).
November 21, 2011 at 18:31 |
BKK
BKK
But now (after all that), we wait for Mark to have his vacation and do his walking in Yorkshire Dales or whereever (I have no idea, but I am sure it is good). It's kind of interesting now - just waiting for what he has promisied - kind of like a 'holding pattern'.
November 21, 2011 at 18:40 |
BKK
BKK
<Alan - thanks again for your comments. I am now finding that anything but basic prioritisation is counter-productive. I know you have alluded to this before, but I find that if the Day Plan is abused (too big), it doesn't work. >
How do you form your day plan? I have my own method which I nickname 'Super3' :-) but it's super simple too, maybe too simple for most people here!
Nevertheless I'll share it if there's some interest...
How do you form your day plan? I have my own method which I nickname 'Super3' :-) but it's super simple too, maybe too simple for most people here!
Nevertheless I'll share it if there's some interest...
November 21, 2011 at 23:53 |
smileypete
smileypete
Hello smileypete.
It is not so much what +kind+ of Day Plan that is important, but the advantages and disadvantages of using one.
I already have a regular AF with Actives and Backlogs, plus alternating “New” pages.
My point to Alan (“if the Day Plan is abused (too big), it doesn't work”) is not that I am disagreeing with the idea of a DP, but that a too-large DP distracts me from AF.
I like the INC. Magazine article that has been referred to often on this forum (http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960901/1807_Printer_Friendly.html ), where items are not constantly re-written.
My problem was that if too many “must-do’s” got on the DP, the old bad habits resurfaced. This is because, with several DP items, you are going to set sequences, which in-turn are really priorities. As we all know, priorities (and what you put on the DP) can get outdated in an instant and too many items also mean that lower-priority items will not get done.
But again, the worst part for me (with a big DP) is that if I spend too much time working out of the DP, then all the other goodies over in AF are being lost and I do not move ahead with otherwise-procrastinated and messy/large tasks, i.e., it throws off little-and-often, dismissal, closed-list benefits, etc.
I am sure Mark has thought about this a lot and is preparing to give us something good concerning DP’s since so many people seem to need one. (He will probably try to talk us out of it or convince us that they are not needed with his new system.)
So, I originally did not have much luck with DP’s. But to answer your question (finally), I now start the day with three large squares (Tres Pierdas) with my favourite important items. I also like a space or a page for my iPhone’s Pomodoro timer time sheet with forced sit-downs, and a record of events.
However, if everything is going to the dogs, and you are putting out fires and not really doing anything on your list, just use the 1-thing technique. Concerning the 1-thing thing, I really liked the discussion in “Back to Autofocus” (http://www.markforster.net/blog/2009/6/12/back-to-autofocus.html#comment4500180 ).
In this post, Tenakha said: “If all you ever do is that one moderately hard task - you have done seven tasks in a week and 28-31 moderately difficult tasks in a month. The sense of achievement you get from doing just one or two is great and then spurs you on to do more. I am now teaching my children the technique so that they don't get into the bad procrastination habits that I have had to battle with almost my entire life.”
In addition, one time Mark mentioned something along the lines that a single task taking up the whole day (or most of the day?) should not (even) be on the AF list.
That sounds reasonable, and it seems that the DP gives you the freedom to put that Big Thing on there and make any notes or sketches or whatever you want.
To keep going on, I see a controllable (small) DP could be relevant to Mark’s excellent post: “How to Get Any Project Up and Running” (http://www.markforster.net/up-and-running/ ). Here is an excerpt:
<<The basic idea is simplicity itself. You can keep any project moving powerfully forward if you take some action on it first thing every day.
Let’s analyse that a bit further. There are three elements:
1) Take some action
2) First thing
3) Every day>>
There is some great stuff in this post and I recommend it be read till the end. Even though you don’t need a DP to remember to work on this single thing to get the project moving, if you are the type who is easily distracted, it certainly does not hurt.
Finally, smileypete, from the name of your method (Super3), it may be similar to what I do with my three big squares at the beginning of the day. I would be very interested in knowing about your method with your comments and ideas.
It is not so much what +kind+ of Day Plan that is important, but the advantages and disadvantages of using one.
I already have a regular AF with Actives and Backlogs, plus alternating “New” pages.
My point to Alan (“if the Day Plan is abused (too big), it doesn't work”) is not that I am disagreeing with the idea of a DP, but that a too-large DP distracts me from AF.
I like the INC. Magazine article that has been referred to often on this forum (http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960901/1807_Printer_Friendly.html ), where items are not constantly re-written.
My problem was that if too many “must-do’s” got on the DP, the old bad habits resurfaced. This is because, with several DP items, you are going to set sequences, which in-turn are really priorities. As we all know, priorities (and what you put on the DP) can get outdated in an instant and too many items also mean that lower-priority items will not get done.
But again, the worst part for me (with a big DP) is that if I spend too much time working out of the DP, then all the other goodies over in AF are being lost and I do not move ahead with otherwise-procrastinated and messy/large tasks, i.e., it throws off little-and-often, dismissal, closed-list benefits, etc.
I am sure Mark has thought about this a lot and is preparing to give us something good concerning DP’s since so many people seem to need one. (He will probably try to talk us out of it or convince us that they are not needed with his new system.)
So, I originally did not have much luck with DP’s. But to answer your question (finally), I now start the day with three large squares (Tres Pierdas) with my favourite important items. I also like a space or a page for my iPhone’s Pomodoro timer time sheet with forced sit-downs, and a record of events.
However, if everything is going to the dogs, and you are putting out fires and not really doing anything on your list, just use the 1-thing technique. Concerning the 1-thing thing, I really liked the discussion in “Back to Autofocus” (http://www.markforster.net/blog/2009/6/12/back-to-autofocus.html#comment4500180 ).
In this post, Tenakha said: “If all you ever do is that one moderately hard task - you have done seven tasks in a week and 28-31 moderately difficult tasks in a month. The sense of achievement you get from doing just one or two is great and then spurs you on to do more. I am now teaching my children the technique so that they don't get into the bad procrastination habits that I have had to battle with almost my entire life.”
In addition, one time Mark mentioned something along the lines that a single task taking up the whole day (or most of the day?) should not (even) be on the AF list.
That sounds reasonable, and it seems that the DP gives you the freedom to put that Big Thing on there and make any notes or sketches or whatever you want.
To keep going on, I see a controllable (small) DP could be relevant to Mark’s excellent post: “How to Get Any Project Up and Running” (http://www.markforster.net/up-and-running/ ). Here is an excerpt:
<<The basic idea is simplicity itself. You can keep any project moving powerfully forward if you take some action on it first thing every day.
Let’s analyse that a bit further. There are three elements:
1) Take some action
2) First thing
3) Every day>>
There is some great stuff in this post and I recommend it be read till the end. Even though you don’t need a DP to remember to work on this single thing to get the project moving, if you are the type who is easily distracted, it certainly does not hurt.
Finally, smileypete, from the name of your method (Super3), it may be similar to what I do with my three big squares at the beginning of the day. I would be very interested in knowing about your method with your comments and ideas.
November 22, 2011 at 15:24 |
BKK
BKK
Hi BKK,
<Finally, smileypete, from the name of your method (Super3), it may be similar to what I do with my three big squares at the beginning of the day>
Yes it is!!!
Each day I start with a new page and space is reserved at the top for two or three big things, they don't have to be tasks, they can be things like just 'relax' (if a day off). Having some space means they can be expanded, refined, and built upon, at the start or on the go.
Further down the page I write the other things I want to do that day, like pay bills, make phone calls, order stuff, chores, urgent stuff.
Then finally at the bottom I write all the minor stuff, just thoughts, random ideas, stuff to look at, distractions, anything goes.
So it's called 'Super3' :-) because there are always three 'layers'.
I found listing all the chores and must do's at the top of the page was a big turn-off!
And putting the big stuff at the top of the page where it's always under my nose, I'm more likely to crack on with it.
Finally, a 'grass catcher' for distractions is a must-have, otherwise they prey on my mind and I *will* get side tracked.
So there it is, I'm sure there's similar ideas out there and would love to hear of them. I do reckon it would sit quite nicely along side Autofocus - and maybe improves on it ;-)
<Finally, smileypete, from the name of your method (Super3), it may be similar to what I do with my three big squares at the beginning of the day>
Yes it is!!!
Each day I start with a new page and space is reserved at the top for two or three big things, they don't have to be tasks, they can be things like just 'relax' (if a day off). Having some space means they can be expanded, refined, and built upon, at the start or on the go.
Further down the page I write the other things I want to do that day, like pay bills, make phone calls, order stuff, chores, urgent stuff.
Then finally at the bottom I write all the minor stuff, just thoughts, random ideas, stuff to look at, distractions, anything goes.
So it's called 'Super3' :-) because there are always three 'layers'.
I found listing all the chores and must do's at the top of the page was a big turn-off!
And putting the big stuff at the top of the page where it's always under my nose, I'm more likely to crack on with it.
Finally, a 'grass catcher' for distractions is a must-have, otherwise they prey on my mind and I *will* get side tracked.
So there it is, I'm sure there's similar ideas out there and would love to hear of them. I do reckon it would sit quite nicely along side Autofocus - and maybe improves on it ;-)
November 23, 2011 at 12:38 |
smileypete
smileypete
"I found listing all the chores and must do's at the top of the page was a big turn-off!"
That's why I just list the absolutely-must-do-todays. That list is often very short or even empty.
That's why I just list the absolutely-must-do-todays. That list is often very short or even empty.
November 23, 2011 at 14:11 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Stuff that's current is part of an Active list like I've written before.
Everything old is being designated part of a Backlog. I pledge never to add another thing to this backlog.
Next, I establish a Midlog. :-)
The Midlog is a buffer zone that I strive to keep empty. I don't work tasks here, but I assess them by a relaxed version of the AF4 dismissal process, where everything gets deleted, reassessed, or filed in a few passes.
The backlog I process in the same manner but less regularly. If this works, eventually I won't have a backlog, and only a short Midlog.