Discussion Forum > Colley's Cascade for prioritizing by urgency
Last week I tried exactly this, and while the first pass is fine, after a few tasks are done the forward rescanning becomes a monster nyiissance. You never make it back to the first dotted item either.
You need a more efficient rescan, a way to deal with unfinished dotted items, and I suspect the initial scan should be limited to a chosen threshold like one of those you propose at the end. Until such is discerned, I favor nuntym's non-Colley experiment.
You need a more efficient rescan, a way to deal with unfinished dotted items, and I suspect the initial scan should be limited to a chosen threshold like one of those you propose at the end. Until such is discerned, I favor nuntym's non-Colley experiment.
February 28, 2012 at 4:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Bernie, I think here you ought to apply Colley's rule to optimize the system. Consider first your prob of hitting top 10%:
.1 + .1*2.5 = .35. Beating the first mark twice: .35 + .35*.65 = .40
But beating your second mark, odds go over 50 I bet.
Obviously, scanning the whole list you will get the #1, but in a list of 100 items, how many tries do you need to reliably reach the top 10? Then take that standard and dot everything that exceeds the standard. In AF terms:
Look at the first ready task. Find a better task. Find one better than that.
Dot every task that exceeds that one. Do all dotted tasks, in any order.
Whenever returning from a break, repeat scanning relative to a dotted task.
If all dotted tasks are done, restart the scan from the beginning.
.1 + .1*2.5 = .35. Beating the first mark twice: .35 + .35*.65 = .40
But beating your second mark, odds go over 50 I bet.
Obviously, scanning the whole list you will get the #1, but in a list of 100 items, how many tries do you need to reliably reach the top 10? Then take that standard and dot everything that exceeds the standard. In AF terms:
Look at the first ready task. Find a better task. Find one better than that.
Dot every task that exceeds that one. Do all dotted tasks, in any order.
Whenever returning from a break, repeat scanning relative to a dotted task.
If all dotted tasks are done, restart the scan from the beginning.
February 28, 2012 at 13:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Perhaps \"If you have more than 10 dots, repeat process -- but only among the dotted items\".
February 28, 2012 at 15:56 |
Cricket
Cricket
+JMJ+
That's getting too complicated for my taste :/
That's getting too complicated for my taste :/
February 28, 2012 at 16:24 |
nuntym
nuntym
Alan,
<<Last week I tried exactly this>>
You don't say!
<<after a few tasks are done the forward rescanning becomes a monster nyiissance. You never make it back to the first dotted item either.>>
This I feared. I hoped that the urgency "for this session" would combat it by picking just the smallest set of most-urgent items, but of course once you are done with "this session" and proceed to "today," etc., then you are likely to end up with stray dots.
<<You need a more efficient rescan>>
Yeah, I thought the rescan sounded like a pain at first. But then I thought it's not any worse than scanning an AF list for the next stand-out item. Instead, you're scanning forward for the next item that beats benchmark. There is only one small extra step of glancing back at the previous benchmark for a reference point.
<<Beating the first mark twice: .35 + .35*.65 = .40>>
I think it will be even higher than that, because the second benchmark is biased upward, as it is known to have beaten the first. The third benchmark will have beaten something statistically higher than the standard Colley's benchmark, so it will be more likely to have landed in the top ten percentiles.
<<Look at the first ready task. Find a better task. Find one better than that.
Dot every task that exceeds that one. Do all dotted tasks, in any order...>>
[Cricket]
<<Perhaps "If you have more than 10 dots, repeat process -- but only among the dotted items".>>
Yes, something like that ... ;) I'm actually more interested in watching how Colley's Rule structures the list than in discovering an actual system. I don't think there's an actual system here yet, without some other ingredient.
nuntym,
<<That's getting too complicated for my taste :/>>
I've made the simple sound complex! All it is is scan and dot, do the last dot, rescan the rest. And repeat. The other verbiage concerns what to expect and why. I do think the rescanning will become a bore, though, by the time we are scanning for "urgent this week." And all those unfulfilled dots left over at week's end!
Last night and today, this method worked really well for me, no doubt via the standard first-time placebo effect, plus I was sick and only worked for a few hours. However, it did unstick a high-resistance project—apparently I'd never asked that project point-blank whether it was urgent to start now. I currently have no stray dots, because I finished all of last session's.
<<Last week I tried exactly this>>
You don't say!
<<after a few tasks are done the forward rescanning becomes a monster nyiissance. You never make it back to the first dotted item either.>>
This I feared. I hoped that the urgency "for this session" would combat it by picking just the smallest set of most-urgent items, but of course once you are done with "this session" and proceed to "today," etc., then you are likely to end up with stray dots.
<<You need a more efficient rescan>>
Yeah, I thought the rescan sounded like a pain at first. But then I thought it's not any worse than scanning an AF list for the next stand-out item. Instead, you're scanning forward for the next item that beats benchmark. There is only one small extra step of glancing back at the previous benchmark for a reference point.
<<Beating the first mark twice: .35 + .35*.65 = .40>>
I think it will be even higher than that, because the second benchmark is biased upward, as it is known to have beaten the first. The third benchmark will have beaten something statistically higher than the standard Colley's benchmark, so it will be more likely to have landed in the top ten percentiles.
<<Look at the first ready task. Find a better task. Find one better than that.
Dot every task that exceeds that one. Do all dotted tasks, in any order...>>
[Cricket]
<<Perhaps "If you have more than 10 dots, repeat process -- but only among the dotted items".>>
Yes, something like that ... ;) I'm actually more interested in watching how Colley's Rule structures the list than in discovering an actual system. I don't think there's an actual system here yet, without some other ingredient.
nuntym,
<<That's getting too complicated for my taste :/>>
I've made the simple sound complex! All it is is scan and dot, do the last dot, rescan the rest. And repeat. The other verbiage concerns what to expect and why. I do think the rescanning will become a bore, though, by the time we are scanning for "urgent this week." And all those unfulfilled dots left over at week's end!
Last night and today, this method worked really well for me, no doubt via the standard first-time placebo effect, plus I was sick and only worked for a few hours. However, it did unstick a high-resistance project—apparently I'd never asked that project point-blank whether it was urgent to start now. I currently have no stray dots, because I finished all of last session's.
February 29, 2012 at 2:49 |
Bernie
Bernie
I've been thinking about this post, and I am wondering whether this method misses the point of Colley's Rule. The idea isn't to find the one best item, and then to find the next best item, and so on. The idea is to *quickly* find a *good* item.
So here are a couple of alternate approaches. In both of them, "better" can mean whatever you think it should mean - "stand out more", "more urgent", etc. Personally I like "stands out with urgency given a heavy weight". :-)
Caveat: I haven't tried any of these, they are just mental exercises at this point, but I think they actually DO apply Colley's Rule. :-)
First idea:
(1) Choose an item as your baseline.
(2) Scan down the list till you find a better item. Put a dot next to it. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there.
(3) Choose the next item in your list as your new baseline. Repeat from (2).
Second idea (gives more emphasis to finishing things you've started):
(1) Scan your list for the next *dotted* item. This becomes your baseline.
(2) Scan down the list till you find a *dotted* item that's better than your baseline. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
(3) If you've scanned all the dotted items, and come all the way back to your baseline item without finding anything better than the baseline, you now open your scan to the undotted items also. Scan down the list till you find an item better than the baseline (dotted or not). Put a dot next to it. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
(4) If you've scanned ALL your items, and come all the way back to your baseline item without finding anything better than the baseline, then you should work on your baseline. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
So here are a couple of alternate approaches. In both of them, "better" can mean whatever you think it should mean - "stand out more", "more urgent", etc. Personally I like "stands out with urgency given a heavy weight". :-)
Caveat: I haven't tried any of these, they are just mental exercises at this point, but I think they actually DO apply Colley's Rule. :-)
First idea:
(1) Choose an item as your baseline.
(2) Scan down the list till you find a better item. Put a dot next to it. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there.
(3) Choose the next item in your list as your new baseline. Repeat from (2).
Second idea (gives more emphasis to finishing things you've started):
(1) Scan your list for the next *dotted* item. This becomes your baseline.
(2) Scan down the list till you find a *dotted* item that's better than your baseline. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
(3) If you've scanned all the dotted items, and come all the way back to your baseline item without finding anything better than the baseline, you now open your scan to the undotted items also. Scan down the list till you find an item better than the baseline (dotted or not). Put a dot next to it. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
(4) If you've scanned ALL your items, and come all the way back to your baseline item without finding anything better than the baseline, then you should work on your baseline. Work on it as long as you want. When you stop, cross the item off your list if you are done with it. Otherwise leave it there. Then, repeat from (1).
March 1, 2012 at 19:49 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Your first method is the one I described in the article about Colley's rule.
Your first method is the one I described in the article about Colley's rule.
March 1, 2012 at 23:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark,
Do you mean this article?
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/2/5/the-resistance-principle-and-colleys-rule.html
Yes, the method you describe there is the same method that I describe. The comparison criterion there is "resistance". Did you ever try the same method with "urgency" as the comparison criterion? What were the results?
Do you mean this article?
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/2/5/the-resistance-principle-and-colleys-rule.html
Yes, the method you describe there is the same method that I describe. The comparison criterion there is "resistance". Did you ever try the same method with "urgency" as the comparison criterion? What were the results?
March 2, 2012 at 0:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I like how this one leaves the task in its original context. We know how old it is and, with a bit of writing, know how often we've worked on it.
March 2, 2012 at 3:13 |
Cricket
Cricket
Seraphim,
<<I've been thinking about this post, and I am wondering whether this method misses the point of Colley's Rule. The idea isn't to find the one best item, and then to find the next best item, and so on. The idea is to *quickly* find a *good* item.>>
Yes, this is a different method—not Colley's Rule, but Colley's Cascade—where the purpose is to keep finding the absolute most urgent item. I got to it while thinking about those few top urgencies per day (or per work session) that one really cannot afford to miss. They catch me off guard when changing circumstances make an item written some time ago much more urgent to start than when I wrote it. So I was thinking about Colley's Rule and wondering about missing these sorts of items.
But that wasn't why I posted. I posted because while pondering the above, I noticed the structure made by succeeding benchmarks and how they act as signposts pointing to ranges of urgencies, also pointing to how to update the structure after striking a benchmark from the list. As I pointed out, it doesn't make a real system, but using it gets you familiar with the nifty way that these benchmarks work, and it feels like there is a useful property in there somewhere.
After all, even when following the ordinary single-benchmark Colley's method, we will continue to scan and action more items, and then we will end up with a series of benchmarks anyway, possibly a cascaded series if we choose it that way. So it's useful to investigate the properties of that series, or of any other benchmark series.
<<I've been thinking about this post, and I am wondering whether this method misses the point of Colley's Rule. The idea isn't to find the one best item, and then to find the next best item, and so on. The idea is to *quickly* find a *good* item.>>
Yes, this is a different method—not Colley's Rule, but Colley's Cascade—where the purpose is to keep finding the absolute most urgent item. I got to it while thinking about those few top urgencies per day (or per work session) that one really cannot afford to miss. They catch me off guard when changing circumstances make an item written some time ago much more urgent to start than when I wrote it. So I was thinking about Colley's Rule and wondering about missing these sorts of items.
But that wasn't why I posted. I posted because while pondering the above, I noticed the structure made by succeeding benchmarks and how they act as signposts pointing to ranges of urgencies, also pointing to how to update the structure after striking a benchmark from the list. As I pointed out, it doesn't make a real system, but using it gets you familiar with the nifty way that these benchmarks work, and it feels like there is a useful property in there somewhere.
After all, even when following the ordinary single-benchmark Colley's method, we will continue to scan and action more items, and then we will end up with a series of benchmarks anyway, possibly a cascaded series if we choose it that way. So it's useful to investigate the properties of that series, or of any other benchmark series.
March 3, 2012 at 5:29 |
Bernie
Bernie
According to http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2004/05/18/making-the-best-choice/ "[John Allen] Paulos proves that you should reject the first 37% of the choices and take the best one after that" or am I misconstruing the correct use of Colley?
March 3, 2012 at 17:20 |
michael
michael
That's a similar problem, but not Colley's rule. Colley's look at one item and take the best one after that. It's less accurate, but faster.
March 3, 2012 at 22:22 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Ok. Thanks Alan. I'm curious as to whether this rule gives similar results to following Mark's principle of finding out whether you really want to do something is to ask yourself the question: “Can I say a whole-hearted yes to this?” I imagine Colley's rule and benchmarking a level of resistance leads to domination of rational self over reactive self.(as Mark calls them).
March 4, 2012 at 18:27 |
michael
michael
michael,
Just to be clear, Colley's Rule is not inherently tied to the resistance principle but can be used with any method of ranking. It was apparently some years ago that Mark wrote about using Colley's Rule with the resistance principle, but the current discussions have been in the context of "urgency to start" rather than resistance.
The same point may apply though: analyzing "urgency to start" may invite an overly rational analysis based on quantified time ... but reading Mark's recent posts on urgency, they are quite open-ended about incorporating importance (to you) into an item's urgency, and so I suspect Mark would say that a proper reckoning of urgency takes whole-heartedness into full account.
That is, any truly whole-hearted desire is urgent to start right now, or perhaps right after eating breakfast and mailing in your taxes.
Just to be clear, Colley's Rule is not inherently tied to the resistance principle but can be used with any method of ranking. It was apparently some years ago that Mark wrote about using Colley's Rule with the resistance principle, but the current discussions have been in the context of "urgency to start" rather than resistance.
The same point may apply though: analyzing "urgency to start" may invite an overly rational analysis based on quantified time ... but reading Mark's recent posts on urgency, they are quite open-ended about incorporating importance (to you) into an item's urgency, and so I suspect Mark would say that a proper reckoning of urgency takes whole-heartedness into full account.
That is, any truly whole-hearted desire is urgent to start right now, or perhaps right after eating breakfast and mailing in your taxes.
March 4, 2012 at 23:01 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie -
<< But that wasn't why I posted. I posted because while pondering the above ... >>
Thanks for the clarification, Bernie! This really helps me understand what you were getting at.
<< But that wasn't why I posted. I posted because while pondering the above ... >>
Thanks for the clarification, Bernie! This really helps me understand what you were getting at.
March 5, 2012 at 13:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It just occurred to me that a decent benchmark for Colley's Rule is whatever pops into your head as urgent to start now. Whether it's on the list or not, search for the first thing that beats it, if anything.
I guess we should add it to the list if it's not already there, in case something does beat it, so we don't forget to come back to it.
I guess we should add it to the list if it's not already there, in case something does beat it, so we don't forget to come back to it.
March 7, 2012 at 20:53 |
Bernie
Bernie
Imagine running your list through Colley's Rule, but instead of stopping when you beat the benchmark, take the new item as a benchmark, and keep going, repeating this process through the end of the list.
Two things are critical: (1) mark each benchmark with a dot, and (2) for ranking the items, use their urgency to be done in the current work session, with \"urgency\" understood according to Mark's recent blog posts, such as
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2012/1/26/urgency-the-natural-way-to-prioritize.html
and
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2012/1/30/how-do-we-tell-how-important-a-task-is.html .
\"Current work session\"? For example: you are settling into work for the morning, with a meeting coming up at 11 am. Then the current session is from now until the meeting. After the meeting, things will be different, due at least to time of day and probably also to emerging circumstances. So there is no point in trying to guess what will be most urgent later on. Instead, all of your benchmarking for now will be based on how urgent an item is for the current session.
Another reason to limit your scans to the current session: hopefully you will complete all the dotted items before the session is over, and you won't have leftover dots in your way for the next session.
When you reach the end of the list, look back toward the top, and here is what you will find:
- a series of dotted items (benchmarks) in order of descending urgency
- each benchmark is more urgent than all items above it (toward the top of the list), including the other benchmarks
- between any two benchmarks are items less urgent than both benchmarks
- the final benchmark is the most urgent thing on the entire list
It is beginning to sound like we should work on the dotted items now, from bottom to top of the list, except for one thing:
- undotted items after a benchmark can be more urgent than any previous benchmark
Visually, we have a tent canvas on a series of poles. Each pole is higher than the previous pole, with the canvas sagging in between. But each sag is of indeterminate depth, so the bottom of one sag might be quite higher than the top of a preceding pole.
Now to work the list:
Action the final dotted item, Forster-style, crossing it off and rewriting it at the end of the list as needed.
Rescan all items below the one you just actioned, taking the preceding dotted item as benchmark. As before, when/if you reach a more urgent item, mark it with a dot and take it as the new benchmark.
The scene is now restored as described above, with benchmarked items stretching back toward the top in order of descending urgency. Tent-wise, we have removed what used to be the highest pole and set up new poles in its place. The new poles continue the overall ascending pattern, picking up where the preceding pole leaves off.
That's all there is to it. Keep repeating the process, always actioning the final dotted item and rescanning. It is a very clean recursive process.
But ... is this practical? Is there too much rescanning? Maybe. But I'm thinking that most of the time, you will be rescanning short sections at the end of the list. Soon you will get to know the end of the list very well, and you will be able to skip over stretches of the list that don't matter for this work session.
Well, then, what happens when all items urgent for this session are done? That might happen very quickly, if you are ahead of your work. Then I would start another scan, top to bottom, with a longer time frame:
What is urgent to do in the next two sessions?
What is urgent to do before close of business?
What is urgent to do today?
What is urgent to do this week?
You'll have been through the list so many dang times you'll probably know exactly what the best time frame is!
Well, it might be wonderful or it might be a pain, but it involves The Amazing Colley's Rule, so I'm going to give it a try.