Discussion Forum > Will-Do and Could-Do
Let me elaborate a bit.
Personally, I have found I have made the greatest progress, whether in work or personal endeavors, by allowing myself to pursue some of these ideas and thoughts that at first glance might seem outside my existing commitments.
For example, at one of my early jobs, I was responsible for generating semiconductor databooks: getting lots of tables of data from some design system, and converting it into a publishable form. The task involved plenty of tedious manual labor, copy, paste, reformat, etc. I kept noticing the regular patterns in the work that would lend themselves to scripted automation, but it seemed to me that pursuing this could only be a side task outside the scope of my main deliverable. The idea kept percolating in my mind, and every now and then I'd spend an hour sketching out some code that might help automate the process. Eventually the idea had formed in my mind so clearly and so compellingly, that I took a couple days to write several scripts to automate the process. This immediately saved over a month of manual labor, and since the scripts could be reused, it saved countless hours of labor for myself and other technical writers in the future.
But at first, the idea was just an oddball exploration kind of thing, and I didn't think I could justify spending any real time on it. And I didn't think my manager would want me to be doing that either. But allowing myself to think, to explore, to tinker a little, finally led to a breakthrough that completely changed the efficiency of that process.
This pattern has been repeated countless times in my career, and also in my personal life. This is why I always do allow myself to explore.
Sometimes these explorations are outside the scope of my immediate responsibilities. Sometimes (more often than not), the explorations don't lead to anything, or I find that they are just wild ideas that aren't connected to any of my real commitments, and really aren't worth pursuing. But when these ideas are successful, they have been SO successful that it makes the failures and the rat-holes worth it.
That's why I *NEED* those percolation features directly integrated into my regular work process, and not hidden in a "someday maybe" process. I just need some way to keep it under control, so I don't end up over-committing myself in the process of exploring some new idea. The DIT+FV method I've been using is the best so far at handling this, but it still has plenty of kinks to work out.
Personally, I have found I have made the greatest progress, whether in work or personal endeavors, by allowing myself to pursue some of these ideas and thoughts that at first glance might seem outside my existing commitments.
For example, at one of my early jobs, I was responsible for generating semiconductor databooks: getting lots of tables of data from some design system, and converting it into a publishable form. The task involved plenty of tedious manual labor, copy, paste, reformat, etc. I kept noticing the regular patterns in the work that would lend themselves to scripted automation, but it seemed to me that pursuing this could only be a side task outside the scope of my main deliverable. The idea kept percolating in my mind, and every now and then I'd spend an hour sketching out some code that might help automate the process. Eventually the idea had formed in my mind so clearly and so compellingly, that I took a couple days to write several scripts to automate the process. This immediately saved over a month of manual labor, and since the scripts could be reused, it saved countless hours of labor for myself and other technical writers in the future.
But at first, the idea was just an oddball exploration kind of thing, and I didn't think I could justify spending any real time on it. And I didn't think my manager would want me to be doing that either. But allowing myself to think, to explore, to tinker a little, finally led to a breakthrough that completely changed the efficiency of that process.
This pattern has been repeated countless times in my career, and also in my personal life. This is why I always do allow myself to explore.
Sometimes these explorations are outside the scope of my immediate responsibilities. Sometimes (more often than not), the explorations don't lead to anything, or I find that they are just wild ideas that aren't connected to any of my real commitments, and really aren't worth pursuing. But when these ideas are successful, they have been SO successful that it makes the failures and the rat-holes worth it.
That's why I *NEED* those percolation features directly integrated into my regular work process, and not hidden in a "someday maybe" process. I just need some way to keep it under control, so I don't end up over-committing myself in the process of exploring some new idea. The DIT+FV method I've been using is the best so far at handling this, but it still has plenty of kinks to work out.
August 17, 2012 at 19:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
+JMJ+
@Seraphim
I would say that the idea that I sounded off in another thread,
<< Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them. >>
is one good way of satisfying your requirements for a will-do and percolator lists. I have been using the same system that uses this method for the past three weeks and it is still going strong, and I absolutely love it. I see no need to tweak it yet, it is THAT robust (and knowing myself, if this system had been anything less than stellar I would have tweaked it in the first week!).
Again, the rules of it (which are the same as before here: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1907485 , but I have reworded them better here, in my opinion) are:
1. Make a list of tasks. Add new tasks at the end of the list anytime.
2. Go to the oldest (first) undeleted task of the list.
___a) If the task is not anymore relevant, then delete it. Return to step 2.
___b) If the task is still relevant, delete and re-write it at the end of the list. Go to step 3.
3. Starting from the end of the list, choose the task that "stands out" then do it.
4. Upon doing what needs to be done on the "standing out" item, delete it. If needed, re-write at the end of the list.
5. Go back to number 2.
(NOTE: If you need to process the list faster, for example the list is quite large, the do step 2 for more than one task)
Now what I noticed about this system is that it REALLY does "percolate" tasks and ideas. As we all know, the main weakness of AF2 (the system this is based on) is that it "forgets" older unactioned tasks: it gets harder and harder to reach older tasks since processing of the list always starts from the end (i.e. newest part) of the list. And yes, that is also what happens with this system. But what is unique with this system is that it reintroduces to the fore the oldest tasks after a few days of almost not seeing them. That amount of time lets those older tasks simmer at the back of the mind for the past few days, and thus gives it enough time to judge the relevance of the unactioned tasks, and may also give the mind new angles to attack them if they are still relevant.
In other words, this system actually exploits the main weakness of the original AF2 to do both dismissal and review of old tasks at the same time "little and often"! That is why my list has stayed so short for the past three weeks, and yet it still feels relevant.
Indeed, I feel this system truly satisfies, for the first time (at least in my use), the requirement of Mark's systems to
<< ...chuck anything at it. I recommend that you enter everything that comes to mind without trying to evaluate. The system itself will do the evaluation >> (from http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/ )
@Seraphim
I would say that the idea that I sounded off in another thread,
<< Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them. >>
is one good way of satisfying your requirements for a will-do and percolator lists. I have been using the same system that uses this method for the past three weeks and it is still going strong, and I absolutely love it. I see no need to tweak it yet, it is THAT robust (and knowing myself, if this system had been anything less than stellar I would have tweaked it in the first week!).
Again, the rules of it (which are the same as before here: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1907485 , but I have reworded them better here, in my opinion) are:
1. Make a list of tasks. Add new tasks at the end of the list anytime.
2. Go to the oldest (first) undeleted task of the list.
___a) If the task is not anymore relevant, then delete it. Return to step 2.
___b) If the task is still relevant, delete and re-write it at the end of the list. Go to step 3.
3. Starting from the end of the list, choose the task that "stands out" then do it.
4. Upon doing what needs to be done on the "standing out" item, delete it. If needed, re-write at the end of the list.
5. Go back to number 2.
(NOTE: If you need to process the list faster, for example the list is quite large, the do step 2 for more than one task)
Now what I noticed about this system is that it REALLY does "percolate" tasks and ideas. As we all know, the main weakness of AF2 (the system this is based on) is that it "forgets" older unactioned tasks: it gets harder and harder to reach older tasks since processing of the list always starts from the end (i.e. newest part) of the list. And yes, that is also what happens with this system. But what is unique with this system is that it reintroduces to the fore the oldest tasks after a few days of almost not seeing them. That amount of time lets those older tasks simmer at the back of the mind for the past few days, and thus gives it enough time to judge the relevance of the unactioned tasks, and may also give the mind new angles to attack them if they are still relevant.
In other words, this system actually exploits the main weakness of the original AF2 to do both dismissal and review of old tasks at the same time "little and often"! That is why my list has stayed so short for the past three weeks, and yet it still feels relevant.
Indeed, I feel this system truly satisfies, for the first time (at least in my use), the requirement of Mark's systems to
<< ...chuck anything at it. I recommend that you enter everything that comes to mind without trying to evaluate. The system itself will do the evaluation >> (from http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/ )
August 18, 2012 at 1:57 |
nuntym
nuntym
Interesting comments, nuntym - I will try to comment after I've had more time to digest it.
Meanwhile, In re-reading the DIT book these past few days, I found that these questions are addressed to some degree in Mark's DIT book. Pages 122-128 discuss "thinking" -- exactly the same percolation idea that we are discussing here. Exploring tentative opportunities that you may or may not end up pursuing --- deciding whether or not to buy a particular product --- ideas that pop into your head in the shower. They all go onto your DIT list, by default on tomorrow's page, but then you can move them to later pages if you want, to revisit the item.
Thinking about this, I realized that when you put something on the DIT list, you are at least making the implicit commitment that you will consider the item a possibility, you will think about it and let it percolate - and then finally come to a decision. You must either come to a decision, or let it go.
Writing it forward a handful of times to give it additional thought is fine. But declaring a backlog or continually rewriting the item forward is a way of deferring that implicit commitment to make a decision.
I am excited about this approach, because it forces me to realize that I have limited bandwidth for giving thought and consideration to all these kinds of items, and that there really is an implicit commitment there.
And by thinking about it this way, there really is no difference between the "will do" and "could do" items. A "could do" is really another way of saying, "I will make a decision about this, or let it go. I am going to give myself a few days or a few weeks to get to that point."
Since these tasks will fill up the Task Diary just like anything else, DIT puts a natural cap on them. Full pages are a flag that you have overcommitted yourself, and it's time to say NO to most of the "think about" tasks, OR say no to one or more of your other commitments so as to make room for the thinking time.
Thinking takes time and energy. Always having a backlog of undecided tasks or someday/maybes is a way of perpetuating the myth that someday/maybe you'll have time to do all those tasks so you can defer your decision about them indefinitely.
Hmm, I will have to try this.....
Meanwhile, In re-reading the DIT book these past few days, I found that these questions are addressed to some degree in Mark's DIT book. Pages 122-128 discuss "thinking" -- exactly the same percolation idea that we are discussing here. Exploring tentative opportunities that you may or may not end up pursuing --- deciding whether or not to buy a particular product --- ideas that pop into your head in the shower. They all go onto your DIT list, by default on tomorrow's page, but then you can move them to later pages if you want, to revisit the item.
Thinking about this, I realized that when you put something on the DIT list, you are at least making the implicit commitment that you will consider the item a possibility, you will think about it and let it percolate - and then finally come to a decision. You must either come to a decision, or let it go.
Writing it forward a handful of times to give it additional thought is fine. But declaring a backlog or continually rewriting the item forward is a way of deferring that implicit commitment to make a decision.
I am excited about this approach, because it forces me to realize that I have limited bandwidth for giving thought and consideration to all these kinds of items, and that there really is an implicit commitment there.
And by thinking about it this way, there really is no difference between the "will do" and "could do" items. A "could do" is really another way of saying, "I will make a decision about this, or let it go. I am going to give myself a few days or a few weeks to get to that point."
Since these tasks will fill up the Task Diary just like anything else, DIT puts a natural cap on them. Full pages are a flag that you have overcommitted yourself, and it's time to say NO to most of the "think about" tasks, OR say no to one or more of your other commitments so as to make room for the thinking time.
Thinking takes time and energy. Always having a backlog of undecided tasks or someday/maybes is a way of perpetuating the myth that someday/maybe you'll have time to do all those tasks so you can defer your decision about them indefinitely.
Hmm, I will have to try this.....
August 19, 2012 at 8:15 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym - I can see the appeal of your system. My own experiments are going in a different direction right now, but I will keep this idea in my back pocket, at least as a way to process a backlog.
August 19, 2012 at 21:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I don't like having to constantly rewrite lines just to keep them available. It's a good way to ensure you work on things that need work in the short term, but not so good for things you want to keep your subconscious working on. It's make-work. It encourages you to delete and give up on rather than rewrite the %@# thing one more time.
All my systems and variations include regular review of the big list, often to find little bits and ideas for the other projects, sometimes to make good use of time when I admit I won't do what I should be doing, but want to try to do something -- anything! -- useful.
You need time for creativity. Google encourages employees to spend 20% of their time on non-assigned projects. Your scripts to speed up databook production are a good example. Deming (of SPC fame) said that investing in the system was the most important thing you could do. (Or maybe it was investing in the employees, with a lot of that investing being listening and encouraging them to improve the system rather than put up with inefficient methods just because the boss thinks it's they're good.)
All my systems and variations include regular review of the big list, often to find little bits and ideas for the other projects, sometimes to make good use of time when I admit I won't do what I should be doing, but want to try to do something -- anything! -- useful.
You need time for creativity. Google encourages employees to spend 20% of their time on non-assigned projects. Your scripts to speed up databook production are a good example. Deming (of SPC fame) said that investing in the system was the most important thing you could do. (Or maybe it was investing in the employees, with a lot of that investing being listening and encouraging them to improve the system rather than put up with inefficient methods just because the boss thinks it's they're good.)
August 19, 2012 at 22:05 |
Cricket
Cricket
- Managing your commitments and the tasks that arise from them
- Sorting out what to do with other things that may or may not be pertinent to your commitments
In other words, I need:
- A will-do list
- A percolator to sift & sort a could-do list
Maybe these would be together in one list. Maybe separate. But both kinds of tasks need to be addressed.
I think Mark is absolutely correct when he says that our tasks arise from our commitments, and if we find ourselves overloaded, we should audit our commitments, not just our tasks.
But we also need to have some way to deal with the other tasks that we're not really sure about. We also need some way to deal with new opportunities that may lead to additional commitments but also could change the nature of our total workload altogether.