Discussion Forum > Original SMEMA instructions & FAQ
I missed when this first went up, came down, moved etc and only am now last week learning about this method. Also appreciate that search is back on. That is something that makes learning from this site most valuable.
So my comments may have already been discussed.
As for this method, I do get the only focus on 3 things at a time is a great improvement from the 150 items causing fear and distraction. However, there are still 150 items, calendars and projects. Yes it is true I can remember what to do for many (most?) yet some are bound to be lost. Not sure how to handle that. Am trying this method, is interesting so far.
So my comments may have already been discussed.
As for this method, I do get the only focus on 3 things at a time is a great improvement from the 150 items causing fear and distraction. However, there are still 150 items, calendars and projects. Yes it is true I can remember what to do for many (most?) yet some are bound to be lost. Not sure how to handle that. Am trying this method, is interesting so far.
April 15, 2013 at 23:09 |
matthewS
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
I think SMEMA operates on the assumption that the things that are lost and forgetten probably deserved to be lost and forgotten. For me, this is probably correct 80% of the time. It's a pretty good tradeoff until the 20% includes some critical item.
I am finding my DIT/SMEMA hybrid works pretty well on most days:
(1) Use DIT as per instructions, but make every effort to finish the DIT list QUICKLY, preferably within the first hour or two of the day.
(2) Use SMEMA the rest of the day.
I tend to use DIT for frequently recurring items, and for critical reminders. Everything else gets handled with SMEMA, which normally includes all the strategically important stuff that is always on my mind anyway.
On busy days with lots of meetings, I never get to do any SMEMA stuff. But at least I stay current with email, paper, etc. and am not creating any new backlogs.
I am finding my DIT/SMEMA hybrid works pretty well on most days:
(1) Use DIT as per instructions, but make every effort to finish the DIT list QUICKLY, preferably within the first hour or two of the day.
(2) Use SMEMA the rest of the day.
I tend to use DIT for frequently recurring items, and for critical reminders. Everything else gets handled with SMEMA, which normally includes all the strategically important stuff that is always on my mind anyway.
On busy days with lots of meetings, I never get to do any SMEMA stuff. But at least I stay current with email, paper, etc. and am not creating any new backlogs.
April 16, 2013 at 4:58 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Seraphim and all:
<< I think SMEMA operates on the assumption that the things that are lost and forgotten probably deserved to be lost and forgotten >>
Yes, that's basically it. Anyone of us could produce a virtually infinite list of things we must do, should do, could do, would like to do, ought to do, might think about doing etc. But just because we've written a list doesn't mean that the things on the list are necessarily the best things we could be spending our time on.
In any period of discretionary working time we could adopt many different strategies. But let's concentrate on just two.
We could spend a week using one of the following:
1. We can work off a long list of 150 items, some of which may have been written on the list several days (or weeks) ago. We can use AF, GED etc to process them..
2. We tackle the things which are most on our mind using the SMEMA method
After the week is finished, which method is likely to have produced the best work?
<< I think SMEMA operates on the assumption that the things that are lost and forgotten probably deserved to be lost and forgotten >>
Yes, that's basically it. Anyone of us could produce a virtually infinite list of things we must do, should do, could do, would like to do, ought to do, might think about doing etc. But just because we've written a list doesn't mean that the things on the list are necessarily the best things we could be spending our time on.
In any period of discretionary working time we could adopt many different strategies. But let's concentrate on just two.
We could spend a week using one of the following:
1. We can work off a long list of 150 items, some of which may have been written on the list several days (or weeks) ago. We can use AF, GED etc to process them..
2. We tackle the things which are most on our mind using the SMEMA method
After the week is finished, which method is likely to have produced the best work?
April 17, 2013 at 15:14 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
+JMJ+
I do not know about all the others here, but I had a BAD reaction to going total-SMEMA several weeks ago.
First couple of days of using SMEMA was fine, I was able to do what I needed to do. But the day came that I began to feel a sort of uneasiness in me that culminated in an almost all-out panic attack, in which I had this nebulous feeling of impending doom in my heart and I couldn't do anything until I got a sheet of paper and started listing out my tasks, not just for this day, but all of them, like a brain dump.
Using the AF's for the past few years probably made me dependent on them. No, this isn't a joke.
I do not know about all the others here, but I had a BAD reaction to going total-SMEMA several weeks ago.
First couple of days of using SMEMA was fine, I was able to do what I needed to do. But the day came that I began to feel a sort of uneasiness in me that culminated in an almost all-out panic attack, in which I had this nebulous feeling of impending doom in my heart and I couldn't do anything until I got a sheet of paper and started listing out my tasks, not just for this day, but all of them, like a brain dump.
Using the AF's for the past few years probably made me dependent on them. No, this isn't a joke.
April 17, 2013 at 16:57 |
nuntym
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Hi nuntym
I thought you were incorporating a list into your "Most Fun Method Ever" variation on SMEMA?
I thought you were incorporating a list into your "Most Fun Method Ever" variation on SMEMA?
April 17, 2013 at 18:03 |
Caibre65
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Neither method really involves any overall planning about what you want to accomplish. Is this the missing component? I'm finding more and more the importance of looking ahead at the calendar and determining the focus for the week. Even if you're using list-less SMEMA, it seems this would help the right tasks come to mind.
April 17, 2013 at 22:12 |
Melanie Wilson
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
SMEMA is a great processing method, keeping you flexible and able to adapt to changing moods, while using structured procrastination to wear down resistance. But having an overall guiding directive is a good idea for many systems, and SMEMA benefits from that as well. Really, I find the big problem with stuff like AF and its other versions is that the list is always too large to be effective. SMEMA feels effective because it subconsciously limits what you're working on. Tying that to a guidance system of sorts only makes it better.
I'm actually using it to process DIT, with interesting results so far that seems to be addressing many of DIT's problems. I'll give a full report after some extended use, but for now I'm feeling it's the best implementation of SMEMA so far.
I'm actually using it to process DIT, with interesting results so far that seems to be addressing many of DIT's problems. I'll give a full report after some extended use, but for now I'm feeling it's the best implementation of SMEMA so far.
April 17, 2013 at 23:17 |
Hail2U!
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
+JMJ+
@Caibre65: I am. I was talking about going totally SMEMA, without any other list. Sorry I didn't make my post clearer.
@Caibre65: I am. I was talking about going totally SMEMA, without any other list. Sorry I didn't make my post clearer.
April 17, 2013 at 23:53 |
nuntym
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
@Mark Forster
<<
1. We can work off a long list of 150 items, some of which may have been written on the list several days (or weeks) ago. We can use AF, GED etc to process them..
2. We tackle the things which are most on our mind using the SMEMA method
After the week is finished, which method is likely to have produced the best work?
>>
when i think about it in theory, #1 feels better. however I just realized that have sort of done a version of #2 in real life. whenever I have 1 week, then 2 days, 1 day, 4 hours ... left to go on trip, my mind becomes excellent at focusing on what MUST be done. I don't reduce to 3 items at a time, but somewhat similar. many, quickly made on the spot mini lists. with some re-used lists such as packing and things to do around house before leave.
so the trick is to behave as if always about to leave on vacation, to truly focus on most important, which is sort of #2.
<<
1. We can work off a long list of 150 items, some of which may have been written on the list several days (or weeks) ago. We can use AF, GED etc to process them..
2. We tackle the things which are most on our mind using the SMEMA method
After the week is finished, which method is likely to have produced the best work?
>>
when i think about it in theory, #1 feels better. however I just realized that have sort of done a version of #2 in real life. whenever I have 1 week, then 2 days, 1 day, 4 hours ... left to go on trip, my mind becomes excellent at focusing on what MUST be done. I don't reduce to 3 items at a time, but somewhat similar. many, quickly made on the spot mini lists. with some re-used lists such as packing and things to do around house before leave.
so the trick is to behave as if always about to leave on vacation, to truly focus on most important, which is sort of #2.
April 18, 2013 at 23:48 |
matthewS
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
I.e., live each day as if it were your last, before vacation.
April 19, 2013 at 4:44 |
Bernie
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
nuntym:
<< I couldn't do anything until I got a sheet of paper and started listing out my tasks, not just for this day, but all of them, like a brain dump. >>
Once you'd written out this list did you find any ways in which you could have improved what you'd actually done during the previous few days when you were using SMEMA?
One exercise which might be valuable (I haven't tried it myself yet) is to compare what one does during a day using list-less SMEMA with what one does during a day using a comprehensive list. Or possibly even a week.
My own hunch is that the comparison would not be in favour of the list.
<< I couldn't do anything until I got a sheet of paper and started listing out my tasks, not just for this day, but all of them, like a brain dump. >>
Once you'd written out this list did you find any ways in which you could have improved what you'd actually done during the previous few days when you were using SMEMA?
One exercise which might be valuable (I haven't tried it myself yet) is to compare what one does during a day using list-less SMEMA with what one does during a day using a comprehensive list. Or possibly even a week.
My own hunch is that the comparison would not be in favour of the list.
April 19, 2013 at 11:24 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Melanie:
<< I'm finding more and more the importance of looking ahead at the calendar and determining the focus for the week. >>
"Check Diary" is one of my most frequently recurring tasks in SMEMA.
<< I'm finding more and more the importance of looking ahead at the calendar and determining the focus for the week. >>
"Check Diary" is one of my most frequently recurring tasks in SMEMA.
April 19, 2013 at 11:26 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Hail2U!:
<< I'm actually using it to process DIT, with interesting results so far that seems to be addressing many of DIT's problems. >>
I'll be very interested to hear the results of this when you are ready to report on them.
<< I'm actually using it to process DIT, with interesting results so far that seems to be addressing many of DIT's problems. >>
I'll be very interested to hear the results of this when you are ready to report on them.
April 19, 2013 at 11:28 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
matthewS:
<< so the trick is to behave as if always about to leave on vacation, to truly focus on most important, which is sort of #2. >>
Exactly.
The point I was trying to make is that a list is a sort of historical record of things which at various times in the fairly recent past one thought might be a good idea to get done sooner or later.
Whereas SMEMA (on its own) is always dealing with the stuff that is important to you right now in the present.
<< so the trick is to behave as if always about to leave on vacation, to truly focus on most important, which is sort of #2. >>
Exactly.
The point I was trying to make is that a list is a sort of historical record of things which at various times in the fairly recent past one thought might be a good idea to get done sooner or later.
Whereas SMEMA (on its own) is always dealing with the stuff that is important to you right now in the present.
April 19, 2013 at 11:36 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
I think that these random, impromptu lists aren't the kind of lists made in DIT or any other carefully planned list.
The whole idea of doing my work during my designated work hours is so that my leisure time is carefree....It's a vacation that I enjoy every day because I know that I've focused on keeping the important work current and it reflects my values, responsibilities and commitments.
I could never wrap my head around AF type random lists. I both think and work in categories which reflect my values and my commitments. Even one offs are mentally categorized according to the values and commitments I've decided to uphold.
The whole idea of planning my weekly DIT is so that I can choose my workload and choose my promises and contracts based on commitments that I can reliably uphold. That is my WILL DO list. Maybes aren't on that list. They are elsewhere. Periodically I review both my maybe one offs projects. When my workload diminishes or I'm able to put in some OT, then I can choose what to bring forward into my active plans.
My workload is built with lots of flexibility because I'm not foolish enough to think that I can control or predict all that can impact my life. Unless it's an appointment or a deadline put on me without prior notice, I can plug in my work into my daily focus list. I intentionally keep it fairly short (2-4 hours) on a regular basis. The rest of my workday is flexible so that it allows for unforeseen events or getting ahead of schedule. Maybe then I'll look over my maybe tasks and pick out a few if the important stuff is current or ahead of schedule.
My brain needs a plan that I can focus my determination on. I especially need determination for the work that is boring and/or unpleasant. Even then I need to remind myself why I'm bothering with it at all. Since my WILL DO list is based on my commitments I can simply carry out my daily focus list plucked from my weekly plan. I don't need to concern myself with the reason. It's already been planned for.
Flexibility is a huge part of that plan. I can roll with the punches and jump on opportunities while still keeping to my commitments. Even before the brain damage, I always had a basic plan to make sure I was upholding my values and my word and enough flexibility to give me room to carry out my plans no matter what life threw at me.
When I'm off the clock, I can enjoy my leisure because I know that I followed my plan. I don't have sift through a long, random lists populated by reactive thoughts. If I don't have a worthwhile target, my resolve shrinks to zero. I have to feel confident that my time and effort are applied to work that has a high ROI. Otherwise ...
The whole idea of doing my work during my designated work hours is so that my leisure time is carefree....It's a vacation that I enjoy every day because I know that I've focused on keeping the important work current and it reflects my values, responsibilities and commitments.
I could never wrap my head around AF type random lists. I both think and work in categories which reflect my values and my commitments. Even one offs are mentally categorized according to the values and commitments I've decided to uphold.
The whole idea of planning my weekly DIT is so that I can choose my workload and choose my promises and contracts based on commitments that I can reliably uphold. That is my WILL DO list. Maybes aren't on that list. They are elsewhere. Periodically I review both my maybe one offs projects. When my workload diminishes or I'm able to put in some OT, then I can choose what to bring forward into my active plans.
My workload is built with lots of flexibility because I'm not foolish enough to think that I can control or predict all that can impact my life. Unless it's an appointment or a deadline put on me without prior notice, I can plug in my work into my daily focus list. I intentionally keep it fairly short (2-4 hours) on a regular basis. The rest of my workday is flexible so that it allows for unforeseen events or getting ahead of schedule. Maybe then I'll look over my maybe tasks and pick out a few if the important stuff is current or ahead of schedule.
My brain needs a plan that I can focus my determination on. I especially need determination for the work that is boring and/or unpleasant. Even then I need to remind myself why I'm bothering with it at all. Since my WILL DO list is based on my commitments I can simply carry out my daily focus list plucked from my weekly plan. I don't need to concern myself with the reason. It's already been planned for.
Flexibility is a huge part of that plan. I can roll with the punches and jump on opportunities while still keeping to my commitments. Even before the brain damage, I always had a basic plan to make sure I was upholding my values and my word and enough flexibility to give me room to carry out my plans no matter what life threw at me.
When I'm off the clock, I can enjoy my leisure because I know that I followed my plan. I don't have sift through a long, random lists populated by reactive thoughts. If I don't have a worthwhile target, my resolve shrinks to zero. I have to feel confident that my time and effort are applied to work that has a high ROI. Otherwise ...
April 19, 2013 at 13:53 |
learning as I go
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Learning, this post is so packed with gems, I need time to digest it and comment. You're a wise, wonderful woman. Thanks for writing this!
April 19, 2013 at 15:15 |
Melanie Wilson
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Hi Mel
Bless your kind soul. Your appraisal of my monkey chatter is far too generous.
Bless your kind soul. Your appraisal of my monkey chatter is far too generous.
April 19, 2013 at 19:44 |
learning as I go
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Your appraisal of your own monkey chatter is far too conservative!
April 19, 2013 at 22:27 |
Alan Baljeu
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Hi Alan
Thank you for your kind sentiments. The drugged up monkey chatter is far worse! *blush*
Thank you for your kind sentiments. The drugged up monkey chatter is far worse! *blush*
April 20, 2013 at 2:41 |
learning as I go
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Mark: <<historical record of things ...
... dealing with the stuff that is important to you right now in the present. >>
Yes, and of course after the "list of things that seemed like a good idea to do" is written one arrives at a new moment, where a new evaluation of oneself and the situation is necessary; perhaps one might go as far as to say writing the list facilitates a new level of clarity, of awareness, of one's choices.
Krishnamurti suggested that as one becomes completely aware of oneself in a given situation there is no need for choice because one acts according to one's true nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choiceless_awareness ). Perhaps this is what list-writing in various forms really allows - expanded awareness, inner and outer.
[Amended the link to make it work by removing the s from https: and putting a space between "awareness" and the parenthesis - MF]
... dealing with the stuff that is important to you right now in the present. >>
Yes, and of course after the "list of things that seemed like a good idea to do" is written one arrives at a new moment, where a new evaluation of oneself and the situation is necessary; perhaps one might go as far as to say writing the list facilitates a new level of clarity, of awareness, of one's choices.
Krishnamurti suggested that as one becomes completely aware of oneself in a given situation there is no need for choice because one acts according to one's true nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choiceless_awareness ). Perhaps this is what list-writing in various forms really allows - expanded awareness, inner and outer.
[Amended the link to make it work by removing the s from https: and putting a space between "awareness" and the parenthesis - MF]
April 20, 2013 at 8:35 |
michael
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
learning as I go:
In fact DIT, as I wrote it, is not a carefully planned list. The "tomorrow" list is composed of everything that comes up during the day that isn't "same day" urgent, plus any tasks which have been pre-added to the Task Diary because they are date specific. So it is in fact a random, impromptu list, a snap-shot of the work that arrives on one's desk during the course of a day.
That's why it's so important to conduct the audit procedure correctly. However the audit procedure works by cutting commitments, not by planning the work.
SMEMA on the other hand is not populated by random thoughts. This is because it is focused on action, but provides distance between the decision and the action.
Please note that I'm not trying to persuade you to give up your present system and switch to SMEMA. SMEMA won't work for everyone and the important thing for all of us is to find a system that works for us and to stick to it!
In fact DIT, as I wrote it, is not a carefully planned list. The "tomorrow" list is composed of everything that comes up during the day that isn't "same day" urgent, plus any tasks which have been pre-added to the Task Diary because they are date specific. So it is in fact a random, impromptu list, a snap-shot of the work that arrives on one's desk during the course of a day.
That's why it's so important to conduct the audit procedure correctly. However the audit procedure works by cutting commitments, not by planning the work.
SMEMA on the other hand is not populated by random thoughts. This is because it is focused on action, but provides distance between the decision and the action.
Please note that I'm not trying to persuade you to give up your present system and switch to SMEMA. SMEMA won't work for everyone and the important thing for all of us is to find a system that works for us and to stick to it!
April 20, 2013 at 13:31 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
michael:
<< Krishnamurti suggested that as one becomes completely aware of oneself in a given situation there is no need for choice because one acts according to one's true nature >>
Yes, and the same idea is found in some Christian authors, such as the author of "L’Abandon à la Providence divine" and I guess it's not that different from "The Power of the Present Moment". The only problem is that my efforts to live like that have always resulted in complete chaos!
<< Krishnamurti suggested that as one becomes completely aware of oneself in a given situation there is no need for choice because one acts according to one's true nature >>
Yes, and the same idea is found in some Christian authors, such as the author of "L’Abandon à la Providence divine" and I guess it's not that different from "The Power of the Present Moment". The only problem is that my efforts to live like that have always resulted in complete chaos!
April 20, 2013 at 13:37 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Hi Mark
Mea Culpa. I forgot how much I altered DIT to suit my purposes and proclivities (good and bad). The principles of DIT are rock solid so my alterations didn't weaken them. I still maintain that DIT is your masterpiece (at least to me). The thing that really saved me was your instructions about getting rid of a backlog. My backlog was scary big! I lost a few years getting rehabilitated from the accident. When I saw the resulting backlog I panicked! LOL! I naver had a backlog before and I hope to never have one again. Resolving the backlog issue almost felt like being in purgatory! LOL!
Thank you!
Mea Culpa. I forgot how much I altered DIT to suit my purposes and proclivities (good and bad). The principles of DIT are rock solid so my alterations didn't weaken them. I still maintain that DIT is your masterpiece (at least to me). The thing that really saved me was your instructions about getting rid of a backlog. My backlog was scary big! I lost a few years getting rehabilitated from the accident. When I saw the resulting backlog I panicked! LOL! I naver had a backlog before and I hope to never have one again. Resolving the backlog issue almost felt like being in purgatory! LOL!
Thank you!
April 20, 2013 at 14:30 |
learning as I go
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
It is true that for every single "system" - GTD, AF, DIT, FV, whatever - that getting all of your thoughts and tasks organised in it immediately feels fantastic. It's a perfect reflection of your situation right now, and then someone will post to say "Wow, been using X for a week already, I think this is The One".
However the system quickly drifts away from that state, and the things in it become stale and irrelevant which leads to a sense of stress. Eventually the system is abandoned or modified with another system and once again felt to be The One - this time for real!
The conclusion - any "system" which encourages you to "capture everything" is doomed to utter failure because we create too many irrelevant things for it to capture. Look, this whole thing with SMEMA is annoying. It's not some breathtaking insight into the reality of getting things done. It's just restating commonsense.
Yes we all know what needs to be done and we can get on and do it. What you need is TO GET ON AND DO IT. If you want to make lists to help with the flow then do so, simple lists are a great way to remember what you're doing. But the moment the list becomes the focus, and not the things on the list, you've failed.
So just use commonsense, switch the laptop off and go and do what you've been pushing around some daft system in lieu of facing it for the last six months. Or don't do it and never think about it again.
However the system quickly drifts away from that state, and the things in it become stale and irrelevant which leads to a sense of stress. Eventually the system is abandoned or modified with another system and once again felt to be The One - this time for real!
The conclusion - any "system" which encourages you to "capture everything" is doomed to utter failure because we create too many irrelevant things for it to capture. Look, this whole thing with SMEMA is annoying. It's not some breathtaking insight into the reality of getting things done. It's just restating commonsense.
Yes we all know what needs to be done and we can get on and do it. What you need is TO GET ON AND DO IT. If you want to make lists to help with the flow then do so, simple lists are a great way to remember what you're doing. But the moment the list becomes the focus, and not the things on the list, you've failed.
So just use commonsense, switch the laptop off and go and do what you've been pushing around some daft system in lieu of facing it for the last six months. Or don't do it and never think about it again.
April 20, 2013 at 15:14 |
Chris
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
<<However the system quickly drifts away from that state, and the things in it become stale and irrelevant>>
I'm going on month 3 (I think) using a modified GTD system w/ DWM rules via Omnifocus. To date, this is the longest I've stuck to a system since 7 Habits (circa 2001).
DWM rules continue to deliver unexpected results & learning. Mark - you really nailed the "doing" modality when you came up w/ those rules.
As an aside, I'm going to my first productivity all-day workshop on Thursday: GTD's Mastering Workflow. So excited!
I'm going on month 3 (I think) using a modified GTD system w/ DWM rules via Omnifocus. To date, this is the longest I've stuck to a system since 7 Habits (circa 2001).
DWM rules continue to deliver unexpected results & learning. Mark - you really nailed the "doing" modality when you came up w/ those rules.
As an aside, I'm going to my first productivity all-day workshop on Thursday: GTD's Mastering Workflow. So excited!
April 20, 2013 at 15:57 |
avrum
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Mark:
Perhaps SMEMA is "The Power of The Slightly Postponed Moment"
Perhaps SMEMA is "The Power of The Slightly Postponed Moment"
April 20, 2013 at 21:18 |
michael
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
learning:
<< Resolving the backlog issue almost felt like being in purgatory! >>
The great thing about purgatory is that however unpleasant it is you know you'll eventually end up in heaven!
<< Resolving the backlog issue almost felt like being in purgatory! >>
The great thing about purgatory is that however unpleasant it is you know you'll eventually end up in heaven!
April 22, 2013 at 8:34 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Writing this as a comment rather than a new subject: I've lost the keychain as to how I ever signed in here!
Screen Name: Braduro (I think)
Q: With the SMEMA method, what do you do with tasks that go uncompleted given your allocated time to work on them?
a) leave SMEMA until you come back to that top line item that was on your conscious yesterday (but maybe not today) and nonetheless sink your teeth into it again until, GULP, it's all eaten up.
b) drop it down to the 3rd item, below the "stop task" which implies that you are not exploring your conscious for the 3rd task. If the 2nd task then goes incomplete after your designated time, then those two decision making slots are already decided for you, (even if today feels like it needs to address a different agenda)
c) cross the incomplete item out anyway. Just stick with 3 items. Forgetaboutit. If it's nagging at you, if you want to do it such that it's completed, it will come to mind again.
d) put lasting items that you chipped away at into FV or a master task list. use that list to inform your choices for SMEMA (which defies the notion that the crucial stuff could be hiding in plain sight on the list or still weighing on you in your conscience)
e) demote the incomplete item to the same SMEMA, just below the 3 tasks, like foam building up in a swampy river. Take it out of rotation when you're stumped for the 2nd or 3rd slot in the SMEMA routine.
f)?
g)?
I'm enjoying working SMEMA with a timer app for the smartphone called 30/30. I know that routine timers have been discussed here before, but I don't use my task planners for routines and habits, and so I won't discuss task timers in general. What 30/30 does however is give an exceptionally basic interface for a few tasks, placing timers like a quasi pomodoro method or time box, and stopping those sprints after tasks are either checked complete or the time allocated for them is spent. It has some nifty gestures for moving things up and down the list. I'd really like something like this to work, but I don't know what to do with a task if it's not done by the time I've estimated for it. By default, this app dumps the task to the bottom of the list if you don't get around to crossing it off before the timer runs out.
Your input is most welcome
Screen Name: Braduro (I think)
Q: With the SMEMA method, what do you do with tasks that go uncompleted given your allocated time to work on them?
a) leave SMEMA until you come back to that top line item that was on your conscious yesterday (but maybe not today) and nonetheless sink your teeth into it again until, GULP, it's all eaten up.
b) drop it down to the 3rd item, below the "stop task" which implies that you are not exploring your conscious for the 3rd task. If the 2nd task then goes incomplete after your designated time, then those two decision making slots are already decided for you, (even if today feels like it needs to address a different agenda)
c) cross the incomplete item out anyway. Just stick with 3 items. Forgetaboutit. If it's nagging at you, if you want to do it such that it's completed, it will come to mind again.
d) put lasting items that you chipped away at into FV or a master task list. use that list to inform your choices for SMEMA (which defies the notion that the crucial stuff could be hiding in plain sight on the list or still weighing on you in your conscience)
e) demote the incomplete item to the same SMEMA, just below the 3 tasks, like foam building up in a swampy river. Take it out of rotation when you're stumped for the 2nd or 3rd slot in the SMEMA routine.
f)?
g)?
I'm enjoying working SMEMA with a timer app for the smartphone called 30/30. I know that routine timers have been discussed here before, but I don't use my task planners for routines and habits, and so I won't discuss task timers in general. What 30/30 does however is give an exceptionally basic interface for a few tasks, placing timers like a quasi pomodoro method or time box, and stopping those sprints after tasks are either checked complete or the time allocated for them is spent. It has some nifty gestures for moving things up and down the list. I'd really like something like this to work, but I don't know what to do with a task if it's not done by the time I've estimated for it. By default, this app dumps the task to the bottom of the list if you don't get around to crossing it off before the timer runs out.
Your input is most welcome
September 5, 2013 at 17:27 |
James
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Braduro or James:
You asked: "What do you do with tasks that go uncompleted given your allocated time to work on them?"
I think Mark answered this in the instructions I re-posted above. The idea is to have an open list that has only the next two or three tasks that you will take some action on, in the order just listed. There is no compulsion to complete a task or re-enter it anywhere. Just trust yourself that if some uncompleted task needs attention, you will enter it again when you are down to only one item on the list.
In practice, I think about context a lot when doing SMEMA. For example, if I know I've got a meeting in an hour, I'll add two short tasks that will be easy to make some progress on in less than an hour (in addition to the one remaining task). Or I might just add "Attend meeting" as one of the two new items, so it fits in the flow of time that is available.
I hope this answers your question.
You asked: "What do you do with tasks that go uncompleted given your allocated time to work on them?"
I think Mark answered this in the instructions I re-posted above. The idea is to have an open list that has only the next two or three tasks that you will take some action on, in the order just listed. There is no compulsion to complete a task or re-enter it anywhere. Just trust yourself that if some uncompleted task needs attention, you will enter it again when you are down to only one item on the list.
In practice, I think about context a lot when doing SMEMA. For example, if I know I've got a meeting in an hour, I'll add two short tasks that will be easy to make some progress on in less than an hour (in addition to the one remaining task). Or I might just add "Attend meeting" as one of the two new items, so it fits in the flow of time that is available.
I hope this answers your question.
September 6, 2013 at 22:43 |
ubi
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Mark,
When you first introduced SMEMA a couple of years ago you mentioned something you called a "partially closed list" which I think was to be used in tandem with SMEMA in some way. Do you still have the blog posts relating to this or would you be prepared to discuss the idea again?
When you first introduced SMEMA a couple of years ago you mentioned something you called a "partially closed list" which I think was to be used in tandem with SMEMA in some way. Do you still have the blog posts relating to this or would you be prepared to discuss the idea again?
February 17, 2015 at 12:02 |
Mark R
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Should you use a different list for each place like FVP?
July 13, 2016 at 14:17 |
nedistanman
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Is it just me or is SMEMA slow to urgent tasks?
July 24, 2016 at 3:05 |
RANDOM GUY
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Mark R:
<< When you first introduced SMEMA a couple of years ago you mentioned something you called a "partially closed list" which I think was to be used in tandem with SMEMA in some way. >>
Can you give me a reference to the place where I mentioned it? I'll try to remember what I was meaning.
<< When you first introduced SMEMA a couple of years ago you mentioned something you called a "partially closed list" which I think was to be used in tandem with SMEMA in some way. >>
Can you give me a reference to the place where I mentioned it? I'll try to remember what I was meaning.
July 24, 2016 at 15:01 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Random Guy:
<< Is it just me or is SMEMA slow to urgent tasks? >>
If a task is so urgent that you need to drop whatever you're doing and get on with it at once, then time management systems become irrelevant. You just do it.
But assuming that your task isn't quite that urgent, how fast is SMEMA? If you follow the rules exactly, then in the worst case when your urgent task arrives on the scene it will have three tasks in front of it and in the best case one task in front of it. I would say that's fast enough for almost anything that doesn't need doing immediately.
<< Is it just me or is SMEMA slow to urgent tasks? >>
If a task is so urgent that you need to drop whatever you're doing and get on with it at once, then time management systems become irrelevant. You just do it.
But assuming that your task isn't quite that urgent, how fast is SMEMA? If you follow the rules exactly, then in the worst case when your urgent task arrives on the scene it will have three tasks in front of it and in the best case one task in front of it. I would say that's fast enough for almost anything that doesn't need doing immediately.
July 24, 2016 at 15:23 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
nedistanman:
<< Should you use a different list for each place like FVP? >>
Since a SMEMA list is only three tasks long, there's not really much point in keeping separate lists. Though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if you want, for example for record and analysis purposes.
<< Should you use a different list for each place like FVP? >>
Since a SMEMA list is only three tasks long, there's not really much point in keeping separate lists. Though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if you want, for example for record and analysis purposes.
July 24, 2016 at 15:26 |
Mark Forster
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
The way I keep direction with SMEMA is to keep my list in this format:
- one-off task A
- next step of a project
- one-off task B
When I've done that middle item, the project step, I immediately write its next action at the end of the list, followed by another one-off:
- one-off task B
- new next step of same project
- one-off task C
This gives me a chain of little & often, hammering on just one project with little productive breaks in between. Coming back from the breaks is when I often have a new idea (sometimes changing the "next step" I wrote down before). I believe that I waste less time this way with tunnel vision and beating my head against the same wall. One needs to find new walls against which to beat one's head!!
After a while, I switch out the project that gets that middle slot. Sometimes I even keep a SMEMA list of projects—that is, the next three projects I intend to focus on. When there is one left, I write down two more. Since I am still such a hyper-focuser, I rarely make it to three projects in one session, but at least I don't have to choose between project work and the on-off tasks of upkeep and daily business, which used to be a huge problem for me.
Before I started using this structure, my SMEMA lists looked more like this:
- one-off task A
- one-off task B
- one-off task C
I would try to reach that mythical state "when the little stuff is out of the way and I can really focus on important stuff." Then I imagined I would write SMEMA lists like this:
- long session of creative work on project A
- crucial step of project B
- another long session of perfection on project A
...
But that project-time Utopia never arrives! Because ultimately, it's just up to me to declare that the time is now.
So for me, it's important to resist the urge to "clear out all the little stuff," and instead let it punctuate my project work. My SMEMA template is a great help for that. Writing down the next two things (with the project step in the middle) gets them out of my head, and I really can focus on the project. If I have many little things bothering me, I write them down on a side list and feed them into those one-off slots as I go. The side list helps remind me to make the project sessions short so those other items can flow through. As the list dwindles, my project steps get longer.
*** "Psychological distance," though, is the greatest feature of SMEMA for me. I think Mark once coined that term, but I wasn't able to find it last I searched. The idea was that, though the next task you plan to do is subject to procrastination, the 2nd and 3rd tasks out are much less affected. This is what the Beeminder folks called Akrasia: the tendency to plan less responsibly about the immediate future but more responsibly about the more distant future. I've found that SMEMA has a just-right psychological distance. Even if I write something silly for my 1st task, I am much more likely to write something of real value in the 2nd or 3rd slot, whether or not I use my project template.
Sometimes, the 3rd slot jump-starts my template. After a few silly tasks, I find something really important in that 3rd slot. So when it is the only task left, I write only one task after it (instead of the usual two), and I make it a one-off. Then as I complete the project task, I can shift into my template.
I don't take SMEMA as a no-list system, though. No-list for me results in drifting. SMEMA's value for me lies in its "psychological distance" effect, its responsiveness, and—with my template—its support for little & often. I have found that with my projects listed, and future projects on a future list (which I can sort at will), and all scheduled items on my calendar, and routines on a second calendar, my grass-catcher list remains short. I do not throw it away at the end of the day, because I suffer acutely from out-of-sight-out-of-mind. My no-list experiments have all gone to disaster-ville.
- one-off task A
- next step of a project
- one-off task B
When I've done that middle item, the project step, I immediately write its next action at the end of the list, followed by another one-off:
- one-off task B
- new next step of same project
- one-off task C
This gives me a chain of little & often, hammering on just one project with little productive breaks in between. Coming back from the breaks is when I often have a new idea (sometimes changing the "next step" I wrote down before). I believe that I waste less time this way with tunnel vision and beating my head against the same wall. One needs to find new walls against which to beat one's head!!
After a while, I switch out the project that gets that middle slot. Sometimes I even keep a SMEMA list of projects—that is, the next three projects I intend to focus on. When there is one left, I write down two more. Since I am still such a hyper-focuser, I rarely make it to three projects in one session, but at least I don't have to choose between project work and the on-off tasks of upkeep and daily business, which used to be a huge problem for me.
Before I started using this structure, my SMEMA lists looked more like this:
- one-off task A
- one-off task B
- one-off task C
I would try to reach that mythical state "when the little stuff is out of the way and I can really focus on important stuff." Then I imagined I would write SMEMA lists like this:
- long session of creative work on project A
- crucial step of project B
- another long session of perfection on project A
...
But that project-time Utopia never arrives! Because ultimately, it's just up to me to declare that the time is now.
So for me, it's important to resist the urge to "clear out all the little stuff," and instead let it punctuate my project work. My SMEMA template is a great help for that. Writing down the next two things (with the project step in the middle) gets them out of my head, and I really can focus on the project. If I have many little things bothering me, I write them down on a side list and feed them into those one-off slots as I go. The side list helps remind me to make the project sessions short so those other items can flow through. As the list dwindles, my project steps get longer.
*** "Psychological distance," though, is the greatest feature of SMEMA for me. I think Mark once coined that term, but I wasn't able to find it last I searched. The idea was that, though the next task you plan to do is subject to procrastination, the 2nd and 3rd tasks out are much less affected. This is what the Beeminder folks called Akrasia: the tendency to plan less responsibly about the immediate future but more responsibly about the more distant future. I've found that SMEMA has a just-right psychological distance. Even if I write something silly for my 1st task, I am much more likely to write something of real value in the 2nd or 3rd slot, whether or not I use my project template.
Sometimes, the 3rd slot jump-starts my template. After a few silly tasks, I find something really important in that 3rd slot. So when it is the only task left, I write only one task after it (instead of the usual two), and I make it a one-off. Then as I complete the project task, I can shift into my template.
I don't take SMEMA as a no-list system, though. No-list for me results in drifting. SMEMA's value for me lies in its "psychological distance" effect, its responsiveness, and—with my template—its support for little & often. I have found that with my projects listed, and future projects on a future list (which I can sort at will), and all scheduled items on my calendar, and routines on a second calendar, my grass-catcher list remains short. I do not throw it away at the end of the day, because I suffer acutely from out-of-sight-out-of-mind. My no-list experiments have all gone to disaster-ville.
July 25, 2016 at 5:05 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
How to SMEMA-ize a catch-all list: (or a dynamic list, I guess)
1. Dot three things to work on.
2. Work on two of them, crossing them out, rewriting, etc. in the usual way for your type of list.
3. Circle the one remaining dot.
4. Dot two more items.
5. Do the circled-dot item.
6. Do either of the remaining two dotted items.
Repeat from 3.
If your list is spread over many pages, Post-It flags may help locate the three dots.
1. Dot three things to work on.
2. Work on two of them, crossing them out, rewriting, etc. in the usual way for your type of list.
3. Circle the one remaining dot.
4. Dot two more items.
5. Do the circled-dot item.
6. Do either of the remaining two dotted items.
Repeat from 3.
If your list is spread over many pages, Post-It flags may help locate the three dots.
July 25, 2016 at 5:10 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie wrote:
<< How to SMEMA-ize a catch-all list >>
Doesn't Step 4 become a problem for you, especially if the list starts covering multiple pages?
<< How to SMEMA-ize a catch-all list >>
Doesn't Step 4 become a problem for you, especially if the list starts covering multiple pages?
July 27, 2016 at 20:16 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie wrote:
<< So for me, it's important to resist the urge to "clear out all the little stuff," and instead let it punctuate my project work. >>
This is an interesting idea. I'm wondering how you got that to work. For me, the deeper work and the one-offs are just different kinds of work—very different mental modes. They don't mix well for me. When I am banging through one-offs (which can include already-defined next actions that are part of several different projects), I am moving very fast, don't want to stop and think, just want to get things DONE. But when I am deep into creative work, I want to have time to think and reflect and draw things out on my big white board. Each has its own kind of flow state -- but they are very different from each other and don't mix well.
I think there is a third state, too, which is "figure out what's next and get things consolidated". It's somewhere in between those other two states. But it never really gels into a real "flow" state. This is where I am dealing with those last few emails that couldn't just be completed or deleted -- or reviewing some meeting minutes and trying to figure out what to do with that last batch of vaguely written action items -- or trying to figure out what to do with the 20 minutes before my next meeting -- or otherwise trying to sort things out and get things in order and set a direction for the day.
<< So for me, it's important to resist the urge to "clear out all the little stuff," and instead let it punctuate my project work. >>
This is an interesting idea. I'm wondering how you got that to work. For me, the deeper work and the one-offs are just different kinds of work—very different mental modes. They don't mix well for me. When I am banging through one-offs (which can include already-defined next actions that are part of several different projects), I am moving very fast, don't want to stop and think, just want to get things DONE. But when I am deep into creative work, I want to have time to think and reflect and draw things out on my big white board. Each has its own kind of flow state -- but they are very different from each other and don't mix well.
I think there is a third state, too, which is "figure out what's next and get things consolidated". It's somewhere in between those other two states. But it never really gels into a real "flow" state. This is where I am dealing with those last few emails that couldn't just be completed or deleted -- or reviewing some meeting minutes and trying to figure out what to do with that last batch of vaguely written action items -- or trying to figure out what to do with the 20 minutes before my next meeting -- or otherwise trying to sort things out and get things in order and set a direction for the day.
July 27, 2016 at 20:27 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Seraphim:
<<Doesn't Step 4 become a problem for you, especially if the list starts covering multiple pages?>>
What I mean is to use your list's method of selecting a task, but just do it twice. E.g., for an AF1 list, you would circulate the pages and dismiss as called for until two more tasks have stood out. There are so many systems here, that we can probably find some that are incompatible with this method, but as a general rule it isn't any harder than the list's base method.
<<Doesn't Step 4 become a problem for you, especially if the list starts covering multiple pages?>>
What I mean is to use your list's method of selecting a task, but just do it twice. E.g., for an AF1 list, you would circulate the pages and dismiss as called for until two more tasks have stood out. There are so many systems here, that we can probably find some that are incompatible with this method, but as a general rule it isn't any harder than the list's base method.
July 28, 2016 at 7:37 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Seraphim:
(RE deeper work vs little stuff, and "clearing out the little stuff")
The answer is "Yes, and..."
I have the same mental modes, deep work vs. little stuff. I think we all do. There's another, though: highly resisted non-trivial projects. In practice, those are the ones that I chop up the most in between little tasks. Otherwise, "clearing out the little stuff" quickly becomes indistinguishable from procrastination. And then, after clearing out, it is too easy to pick a creative task that isn't resisted and dive in deeply, until at the end of the day the resisted project has once again gone nowhere. Yet, I was productive all day, so I tell myself I just didn't have time, just didn't get around to it, and I'll do it tomorrow.
But will I? No, more often than not. But if I put it into my SMEMA template, and take a few tiny steps, the resistance melts away.
For non-resisted projects, there is still use for my SMEMA template: when I get stuck. Not stuck due to resistance, but just not knowing what to do next. A dead end. It could happen after 15 minutes of progress or 3 hours of progress. Traditionally, that is the time to *power through*, force yourself to focus, wrack your brain, PUSH YOURSELF! Right?
Nah. That's when I go change the furnace filters. Come back twelve minutes later, and more often than not, I have a new direction and new movement. Instead of wasting those 12 minutes running my brain in circles, I got a chore done. For FREE!
A strategy I often end up using is to clear out the little stuff in the gaps between a resisted project. The result is progress on that project, and the little stuff cleared out. Then I get lost in a creative project, and if I don't get anything else done all day, it's okay because I got all the little things done and made progress on that horrible project. I hadn't thought about all that as I wrote the post above, but in light of your comment, I do find that that's often how I've been approaching it.
There's a school of thought in resistance training (backed by some high-level Olympic coaches) that says you lift until your motion slows down. Not x number of reps given by some formula, not X% more than last time, not to failure, not grinding out slow reps, but lifting at a smooth speed until your lifting motion just begins to slow down. That defines the end of the set. You take a brief rest (typically 2-3 minutes) and continue the same lift. You keep doing these sets until you are unable to lift at speed. There is an entire subculture of athletes who have great success with this method. I see "little & often" as the same idea for the mind.
But the trick is to come back to the *same* lift, the *same* project. If you randomly drop the one lift and take up another, and keep stopping when the going gets tough, you won't get anywhere. That was how AF1 broke down, spreading the effort too thin once the list gets long. My SMEMA template says yes to "little & often" but also yes to "focus on one project at a time." There is only one project being hammered on, as many sets as I can handle, and then I move on.
(RE deeper work vs little stuff, and "clearing out the little stuff")
The answer is "Yes, and..."
I have the same mental modes, deep work vs. little stuff. I think we all do. There's another, though: highly resisted non-trivial projects. In practice, those are the ones that I chop up the most in between little tasks. Otherwise, "clearing out the little stuff" quickly becomes indistinguishable from procrastination. And then, after clearing out, it is too easy to pick a creative task that isn't resisted and dive in deeply, until at the end of the day the resisted project has once again gone nowhere. Yet, I was productive all day, so I tell myself I just didn't have time, just didn't get around to it, and I'll do it tomorrow.
But will I? No, more often than not. But if I put it into my SMEMA template, and take a few tiny steps, the resistance melts away.
For non-resisted projects, there is still use for my SMEMA template: when I get stuck. Not stuck due to resistance, but just not knowing what to do next. A dead end. It could happen after 15 minutes of progress or 3 hours of progress. Traditionally, that is the time to *power through*, force yourself to focus, wrack your brain, PUSH YOURSELF! Right?
Nah. That's when I go change the furnace filters. Come back twelve minutes later, and more often than not, I have a new direction and new movement. Instead of wasting those 12 minutes running my brain in circles, I got a chore done. For FREE!
A strategy I often end up using is to clear out the little stuff in the gaps between a resisted project. The result is progress on that project, and the little stuff cleared out. Then I get lost in a creative project, and if I don't get anything else done all day, it's okay because I got all the little things done and made progress on that horrible project. I hadn't thought about all that as I wrote the post above, but in light of your comment, I do find that that's often how I've been approaching it.
There's a school of thought in resistance training (backed by some high-level Olympic coaches) that says you lift until your motion slows down. Not x number of reps given by some formula, not X% more than last time, not to failure, not grinding out slow reps, but lifting at a smooth speed until your lifting motion just begins to slow down. That defines the end of the set. You take a brief rest (typically 2-3 minutes) and continue the same lift. You keep doing these sets until you are unable to lift at speed. There is an entire subculture of athletes who have great success with this method. I see "little & often" as the same idea for the mind.
But the trick is to come back to the *same* lift, the *same* project. If you randomly drop the one lift and take up another, and keep stopping when the going gets tough, you won't get anywhere. That was how AF1 broke down, spreading the effort too thin once the list gets long. My SMEMA template says yes to "little & often" but also yes to "focus on one project at a time." There is only one project being hammered on, as many sets as I can handle, and then I move on.
July 28, 2016 at 8:03 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie:
A lot of good thoughts here. Especially the training tip! I'm currently testing Jesse's no-rewrite take on the May 9/May 15 systems and it seems to achieve a similar effect to your SMEMA template.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2601072
A lot of good thoughts here. Especially the training tip! I'm currently testing Jesse's no-rewrite take on the May 9/May 15 systems and it seems to achieve a similar effect to your SMEMA template.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2601072
July 28, 2016 at 11:58 |
Michael B.
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie wrote:
<< What I mean is to use your list's method of selecting a task, but just do it twice. >>
Ah, that clarifies it, thanks!
<< What I mean is to use your list's method of selecting a task, but just do it twice. >>
Ah, that clarifies it, thanks!
July 28, 2016 at 15:29 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie wrote:
<< There's another [mode]: highly resisted non-trivial projects >>
...
<< A strategy I often end up using is to clear out the little stuff in the gaps between a resisted project. The result is progress on that project, and the little stuff cleared out. >>
...
<< But the trick is to come back to the *same* lift, the *same* project. If you randomly drop the one lift and take up another, and keep stopping when the going gets tough, you won't get anywhere. >>
...
<< That was how AF1 broke down, spreading the effort too thin once the list gets long. My SMEMA template says yes to "little & often" but also yes to "focus on one project at a time." There is only one project being hammered on, as many sets as I can handle, and then I move on. >>
Lots of great food for thought there! I need to ponder this some more before I can reply.
Thanks Bernie!
<< There's another [mode]: highly resisted non-trivial projects >>
...
<< A strategy I often end up using is to clear out the little stuff in the gaps between a resisted project. The result is progress on that project, and the little stuff cleared out. >>
...
<< But the trick is to come back to the *same* lift, the *same* project. If you randomly drop the one lift and take up another, and keep stopping when the going gets tough, you won't get anywhere. >>
...
<< That was how AF1 broke down, spreading the effort too thin once the list gets long. My SMEMA template says yes to "little & often" but also yes to "focus on one project at a time." There is only one project being hammered on, as many sets as I can handle, and then I move on. >>
Lots of great food for thought there! I need to ponder this some more before I can reply.
Thanks Bernie!
July 28, 2016 at 19:36 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Michael B.:
Yes, those "Jesse" systems do look like they have a similar effect. They might be attractive to people who want to keep a few things in play. Mine makes you focus on just one at a time. Before Mark's system, I believed steadfastly in "One thing at a time!" which has its moments but also results in lots of fatigue and head-bashing. So I like the familiar feel of the One Thing but with such a more effective way to focus on it, without paralyzing everything else.
Seraphim:
Bon appétit! LOL. Let's hope they're not empty calories! (as so many of our ideas fizzle out so quickly)
BTW I have a decent dashboard now, partially described at "July 25, 2016 at 8:53" of thread "How to Handle Reminders in No List Systems" at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2619181 .
It goes well with my SMEMA template, and I have been trying out SMEMA-izing it as well: mark the next three tasks, next three projects, next three goals... It is basically a radial kanban. You don't have to set WIP limits, because the space is progressively more limited as you reach the center. The radial axis represents size as well as time, with the smallest, current items in the middle, and the largest, future items around the edge.
If it survives for a while, I'll take some screenshots and write it up more clearly.
Yes, those "Jesse" systems do look like they have a similar effect. They might be attractive to people who want to keep a few things in play. Mine makes you focus on just one at a time. Before Mark's system, I believed steadfastly in "One thing at a time!" which has its moments but also results in lots of fatigue and head-bashing. So I like the familiar feel of the One Thing but with such a more effective way to focus on it, without paralyzing everything else.
Seraphim:
Bon appétit! LOL. Let's hope they're not empty calories! (as so many of our ideas fizzle out so quickly)
BTW I have a decent dashboard now, partially described at "July 25, 2016 at 8:53" of thread "How to Handle Reminders in No List Systems" at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2619181 .
It goes well with my SMEMA template, and I have been trying out SMEMA-izing it as well: mark the next three tasks, next three projects, next three goals... It is basically a radial kanban. You don't have to set WIP limits, because the space is progressively more limited as you reach the center. The radial axis represents size as well as time, with the smallest, current items in the middle, and the largest, future items around the edge.
If it survives for a while, I'll take some screenshots and write it up more clearly.
July 28, 2016 at 20:53 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Bernie,
I am not sure how I missed your post on the radial dashboard idea!
(Here is a direct link, by the way: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2619181#post2619698 )
Similar to your experience, I've found that using a whiteboard is great at limiting WIP and keeping focus. I think this is one of the greatest benefits of No-List. (I wrote more about it here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2578511 )
And sometimes, it did seem to hint at a kind of dashboard effect. Depending on how the no-list took shape on the whiteboard, I would naturally see groupings and dependencies and problem areas. But it didn't really fall into a clear structure.
Your radial dashboard post gives me some ideas. Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard for certain projects, or areas of responsibility, or something. I will try to experiment with this.
It reminds me of the "to eat less, use a smaller container" effect. So much depends on getting the right structure for the workflow. This recent article talks about that a bit more: http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/personal-blog-about-working-hard
I am not sure how I missed your post on the radial dashboard idea!
(Here is a direct link, by the way: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2619181#post2619698 )
Similar to your experience, I've found that using a whiteboard is great at limiting WIP and keeping focus. I think this is one of the greatest benefits of No-List. (I wrote more about it here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2578511 )
And sometimes, it did seem to hint at a kind of dashboard effect. Depending on how the no-list took shape on the whiteboard, I would naturally see groupings and dependencies and problem areas. But it didn't really fall into a clear structure.
Your radial dashboard post gives me some ideas. Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard for certain projects, or areas of responsibility, or something. I will try to experiment with this.
It reminds me of the "to eat less, use a smaller container" effect. So much depends on getting the right structure for the workflow. This recent article talks about that a bit more: http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/personal-blog-about-working-hard
July 28, 2016 at 21:26 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
Seraphim:
<<Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard for certain projects, or areas of responsibility, or something.>>
I tried coming up with some standard set of slots for the things I am currently working on, but life always found a way to ruin my categories. That is why I gave up and let simple 2D geometry enforce the WIP limits with a minimum of categorization.
I was thinking one day about all the cars queueing up to get out of a massive sporting event, many rows merging together to reach a few exits; or a huge crowd in a wide open space pressing toward just two or three exits. Every push forward, every blocked space, every slip past, every shift sideways is a micro decision in a vast matrix of priority, completely uncategorized, overseen by no one. What if my projects and goals and tasks could do that? What if I could zoom in on one and see it tussling with the others around it, make the right local decisions about it by nudging it one way or the other, and have those decisions permanently recorded by virtue of where the item then sits? What if choosing the right actions were as simple as pulling these items through the "exits" one by one?
At the top of a (very big, virtual) page, I've written "Career." In the lower left, "Family," and in the lower right, "Personal." In the middle, I've written "Now."
Now, imagine wide concentric rings inside the Career/Family/Personal labels. There are four such rings. The outermost is for ongoing concerns that are never finished ("Areas of Focus" or "Roles" or any topics/categories that come to mind, such as "House" or "Sales Team"). Next in, large goals that can be finished but are too big to envision as a single project ("Move in to new house"). Next in, projects, which are the smallest useful but non-trivial accomplishments toward a goal ("Unpack kitchen"). Finally, a wide circle around "Now" is for tasks (next actions). The hierarchy is not strict. I don't force projects to connect back to goals if they're not immediately obvious. Just place them in the right sector of Career/Family/Personal.
Within each ring, you queue the appropriate items with currently active ones toward the center and later ones toward the edge. Lines connect each item to its children (e.g., a goal to its projects). In the innermost ring, tasks queue up to reach "Now." I place Waiting-For items on the edge between the projects ring and the tasks ring. In general, I do not list children of inactive, queued items. Only active items get that. I allow queued items to back up a bit into the next ring as necessary, generally no more than three. The structure is very loose (like a crowd pressing towards the gates). If I ever need a long, detailed queue that can't fit on the map, I will keep a separate list for it with project plans. My mapping software can even hold a link to such a document from a node right on this map.
You can show actual, visible rings on the map, or you can imagine them and cluster your items with clear empty space to delineate them. I have a decent map now in the "VUE" software app (http://vue.tufts.edu/ ), with concentric rings (actually circular nodes) in a locked background layer. An earlier version used rectangular concentric regions instead of rings, and I think this worked better since the nodes are most efficient as rectangular text boxes. I will probably go back to that.
Now you have polar coordinates giving you the two basic views of your work: individual threads of work run radially from outside to inside, and all the things you are working on at a certain level run in a ring at a certain radius. This is similar to the planning-vs-context view you see in so many to-do apps. I tend to identify the next three items in a given area and drag them toward the inside of their ring. When two have been actioned as far as I want to take them for now, I pick two more: SMEMA, SMEMA everywhere!
I don't place every little bread-and-butter task in the middle of the map. Most tasks on the map are spawned from a project already mapped. The "project" ring serves as my project list, as if they are lining up for a turn to project tasks over the wall into the task ring. If I finish a task and temporarily forget about its project, I will see the project sitting in that ring pointing to the now-outdated task, or no task. But one-off tasks get written in today's page of my notebook and usually actioned from there. If they are too big to be actioned straight from the list, then they become projects on the map. If they are for later, they go to the calendar. The written list stays short, gets cleared regularly like an email inbox.
So... I guess that's my first draft of trying to describe my radial task map. All because you wrote, "Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard..." Wow!
<<Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard for certain projects, or areas of responsibility, or something.>>
I tried coming up with some standard set of slots for the things I am currently working on, but life always found a way to ruin my categories. That is why I gave up and let simple 2D geometry enforce the WIP limits with a minimum of categorization.
I was thinking one day about all the cars queueing up to get out of a massive sporting event, many rows merging together to reach a few exits; or a huge crowd in a wide open space pressing toward just two or three exits. Every push forward, every blocked space, every slip past, every shift sideways is a micro decision in a vast matrix of priority, completely uncategorized, overseen by no one. What if my projects and goals and tasks could do that? What if I could zoom in on one and see it tussling with the others around it, make the right local decisions about it by nudging it one way or the other, and have those decisions permanently recorded by virtue of where the item then sits? What if choosing the right actions were as simple as pulling these items through the "exits" one by one?
At the top of a (very big, virtual) page, I've written "Career." In the lower left, "Family," and in the lower right, "Personal." In the middle, I've written "Now."
Now, imagine wide concentric rings inside the Career/Family/Personal labels. There are four such rings. The outermost is for ongoing concerns that are never finished ("Areas of Focus" or "Roles" or any topics/categories that come to mind, such as "House" or "Sales Team"). Next in, large goals that can be finished but are too big to envision as a single project ("Move in to new house"). Next in, projects, which are the smallest useful but non-trivial accomplishments toward a goal ("Unpack kitchen"). Finally, a wide circle around "Now" is for tasks (next actions). The hierarchy is not strict. I don't force projects to connect back to goals if they're not immediately obvious. Just place them in the right sector of Career/Family/Personal.
Within each ring, you queue the appropriate items with currently active ones toward the center and later ones toward the edge. Lines connect each item to its children (e.g., a goal to its projects). In the innermost ring, tasks queue up to reach "Now." I place Waiting-For items on the edge between the projects ring and the tasks ring. In general, I do not list children of inactive, queued items. Only active items get that. I allow queued items to back up a bit into the next ring as necessary, generally no more than three. The structure is very loose (like a crowd pressing towards the gates). If I ever need a long, detailed queue that can't fit on the map, I will keep a separate list for it with project plans. My mapping software can even hold a link to such a document from a node right on this map.
You can show actual, visible rings on the map, or you can imagine them and cluster your items with clear empty space to delineate them. I have a decent map now in the "VUE" software app (http://vue.tufts.edu/ ), with concentric rings (actually circular nodes) in a locked background layer. An earlier version used rectangular concentric regions instead of rings, and I think this worked better since the nodes are most efficient as rectangular text boxes. I will probably go back to that.
Now you have polar coordinates giving you the two basic views of your work: individual threads of work run radially from outside to inside, and all the things you are working on at a certain level run in a ring at a certain radius. This is similar to the planning-vs-context view you see in so many to-do apps. I tend to identify the next three items in a given area and drag them toward the inside of their ring. When two have been actioned as far as I want to take them for now, I pick two more: SMEMA, SMEMA everywhere!
I don't place every little bread-and-butter task in the middle of the map. Most tasks on the map are spawned from a project already mapped. The "project" ring serves as my project list, as if they are lining up for a turn to project tasks over the wall into the task ring. If I finish a task and temporarily forget about its project, I will see the project sitting in that ring pointing to the now-outdated task, or no task. But one-off tasks get written in today's page of my notebook and usually actioned from there. If they are too big to be actioned straight from the list, then they become projects on the map. If they are for later, they go to the calendar. The written list stays short, gets cleared regularly like an email inbox.
So... I guess that's my first draft of trying to describe my radial task map. All because you wrote, "Maybe I can block off parts of my whiteboard..." Wow!
July 31, 2016 at 10:47 |
Bernie
![Unregistered Commenter Unregistered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
This is really interesting, Bernie. Thanks for sharing the method in so much detail! It's easy to see how this gives you that dashboard effect.
I tried one or two ideas for doing something similar on my whiteboard—to make the no-list more visual—a kind of "quadrants" idea—but really couldn't get anything to work yet.
The most promising one has been today's experiment with grouping things by a value + speed ranking:
^
V | 1 2
A |
L |
U | 0 1
E |
__________ >
SPEED
1. Higher-value things that can be done quickly are grouped in the upper right of my board.
2. Lower-value things that can be done quickly are grouped in the lower right.
3. Higher-value things that will take some time are grouped in the upper left.
4. Lower-value things that will take some time are grouped in the lower left.
I try to keep it comparative, rather than absolute: take two things, and compare them. Which is higher value? That goes on the upper half. The other goes on the lower half. Which can be done faster? Nudge it to the right, nudge the other one to the left. Once I have a few things written there, that serves as a baseline for the rest.
Then, following a time-to-value approach that optimizes for fast flow, I work them in the order shown. Here is the idea:
1. "High value" gets a bonus point.
2. "Quickly completed" gets a bonus point.
3. Add up the bonus points and do the things with the most bonus points first.
Thus, high-value things that can be done quickly, get done first.
Next come the things that are either higher-value but slow, or lower-value but fast. These have the same number of bonus points. To optimize flow, reduce WIP, and pay down the task debt faster, I decided to give the smaller tasks priority, even though they are lower value. I did a little spreadsheet simulation that confirmed this does get more value faster (albeit not by much); so it's a workable rule of thumb.
Finally comes the lower-value, less-quick tasks. These are candidates for deletion or deferral. Compared to everything else I have on my plate, these are the lowest ROI.
It's helpful for sorting out lots of one-off things that need attention, but I'm not so sure it will scale up to the project level. It's worked great with sorting a big backlog of paper that's been accumulating all week.
Interestingly, urgency doesn't factor into this at all. I am not sure if that's good or bad. Since this is a no-list approach, and I start fresh several times through the day, I guess urgency will help determine what shows up on the board in the first place, so maybe that's not a factor.
Anyway, I am trying to keep this simple and light, so it keeps the feel of a no-list, and doesn't turn into a monster that needs feeding and brushing.
I tried one or two ideas for doing something similar on my whiteboard—to make the no-list more visual—a kind of "quadrants" idea—but really couldn't get anything to work yet.
The most promising one has been today's experiment with grouping things by a value + speed ranking:
^
V | 1 2
A |
L |
U | 0 1
E |
__________ >
SPEED
1. Higher-value things that can be done quickly are grouped in the upper right of my board.
2. Lower-value things that can be done quickly are grouped in the lower right.
3. Higher-value things that will take some time are grouped in the upper left.
4. Lower-value things that will take some time are grouped in the lower left.
I try to keep it comparative, rather than absolute: take two things, and compare them. Which is higher value? That goes on the upper half. The other goes on the lower half. Which can be done faster? Nudge it to the right, nudge the other one to the left. Once I have a few things written there, that serves as a baseline for the rest.
Then, following a time-to-value approach that optimizes for fast flow, I work them in the order shown. Here is the idea:
1. "High value" gets a bonus point.
2. "Quickly completed" gets a bonus point.
3. Add up the bonus points and do the things with the most bonus points first.
Thus, high-value things that can be done quickly, get done first.
Next come the things that are either higher-value but slow, or lower-value but fast. These have the same number of bonus points. To optimize flow, reduce WIP, and pay down the task debt faster, I decided to give the smaller tasks priority, even though they are lower value. I did a little spreadsheet simulation that confirmed this does get more value faster (albeit not by much); so it's a workable rule of thumb.
Finally comes the lower-value, less-quick tasks. These are candidates for deletion or deferral. Compared to everything else I have on my plate, these are the lowest ROI.
It's helpful for sorting out lots of one-off things that need attention, but I'm not so sure it will scale up to the project level. It's worked great with sorting a big backlog of paper that's been accumulating all week.
Interestingly, urgency doesn't factor into this at all. I am not sure if that's good or bad. Since this is a no-list approach, and I start fresh several times through the day, I guess urgency will help determine what shows up on the board in the first place, so maybe that's not a factor.
Anyway, I am trying to keep this simple and light, so it keeps the feel of a no-list, and doesn't turn into a monster that needs feeding and brushing.
July 31, 2016 at 23:57 |
Seraphim
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/universal/images/transparent.png)
The Simplest and Most Effective Method of All?
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013 AT 23:41
The older I get the more I think that I actually know what I should be doing all along, and all the time management systems and prioritising, visioning, and so forth are just ways of avoiding doing the things I know in my heart I should be getting on with.
I know that I know what I should be doing, because if I keep avoiding doing what I should be doing I start to get more and more stressed. The stress comes from my awareness that I should have done it, plus fear of the consequences of not doing it.
So when I construct a enormous list of 150 tasks which “need” doing, I’m becoming increasingly aware that the 150 tasks are there in order to bury four or five things that I really don’t want to do.
And when I spend several hours writing a vision and then an action plan and then a list of monthly,weekly and daily targets, what I am really doing is avoiding doing one particular task which I could have done during the time I spent writing all that stuff.
So can I cut back all the listing and planning so I can access directly what I really need to be doing right now this minute?
I think the answer is “yes”, and I’m now going to try to describe how.
There are three main things we need in order to do the right thing at the right time:
1) identification of what the right thing is
2) a decision to do it
3) a certain amount of distance from the task so we can look at it objectively.
How can we achieve this?
We can achieve the first by NOT having any lists. I know that is going to throw some people into a panic, but think about it. If we are actively engaged in our work, the things which really matter are going to be on our minds anyway. I don’t need a reminder that I need to get the report done for the committee because I’ve spent all week worrying about the fact that the deadline is getting closer and closer and I haven’t done anything about it yet. What I really need is a reminder not to do anything else!
Nevertheless making a decision to do something that I’m resisting is not easy - that’s why I’ve been putting it off in the first place. It can’t just be a matter of deciding to do the report right now because that’s exactly what I’ve been doing anything to avoid doing.
This is where putting a certain amount of distance between the decision and the action comes in. To decide now to do a certain difficult task now is hard - sometimes it feels almost impossible. But to decide now to do the task after I’ve read a few blogs and checked my email is much easier. What’s more it works if all I allow myself to do is read the blogs purposefully and check my email before I do the task. What tends to happen though is that I don’t make a proper decision to do it but instead read blogs aimlessly, check my email, check Facebook, follow links, sharpen my pencils, and before I know it it’s time for lunch. So how can I provide the distance necessary to make the decision, while at the same time ensuring that decision is close enough to the task for it actually to get done?
Simple!
1. Write down the next three things you intend to do in the order you intend to do them.
2. Do the first two, and then add another two tasks at the end.
3. Continue this way, doing two tasks and then adding another two to make it back up to three tasks, ad infinitum.
That’s it!
Those of you who have read deeply in this website may recognise that this resembles very closely a previous suggestion of mine called the Three Tasks Method (3T). In fact the only difference is that in 3T you had to keep rotating round the tasks until two of the three tasks had been completely finished. But with this new method you do not rotate the tasks, but simply cross each task off once you have worked on it, whether it’s finished or not.
So why does the Simplest and Most Effective Method of All work?
!) You are not allowed to use lists, so you have to think carefully each time you add the two new tasks. The things which are most on your mind are the things which you are naturally going to want to add.
2) Having three tasks gives the necessary distance. Every time you add more tasks you have one of the old tasks left to do before you do the first of the new ones.
Some questions:
Q. Why three tasks? Wouldn’t it achieve distance even more effectively if you had four or more tasks?
A. If I start adding more than three tasks, I am losing the impulse which comes from making the decision to add a particular task. Three tasks gives just the right balance between impulse and distance. Another important factor is that the more I go past three tasks the more likely to I am to find that the sequence gets put off by emergencies, interruptions, changes of context, etc. It’s important that once the sequence is decided it actually gets done.
Q. Why replenish two tasks at a time? Why is that better than doing all three tasks and then adding three new ones?
A. If I do all three tasks in one go, then the first of the new tasks has no distance. That means that it will probably be an easy “filler”. Once I’ve decided on one easy filler then it’s likely that I’ll go on chosing easy tasks. It’s important that all the tasks I choose have distance at the time of choosing. It means I am more likely to choose a task because it is right rather than because it is easy.
Q. In that case why not add one task at a time - every time you do one task add another?
A. My experience is that there is a lot of difference between choosing one task and choosing two. I don’t quite know why, but I seem to make more considered choices when I have to choose two. Maybe it’s to do with the amount of time before I get to make another choice. And there’s also a purely practical point - I found I kept forgetting to chose a new task. That never seemed to be a problem when I had to wait to choose two.