Discussion Forum > Bragging Rights
Many congratulations!
Now for a few observations:
1) If some of the stuff could hang around for over 5 years without apparently bringing your entire work life to a grinding halt, then one has to to ask if it couldn't equally well have hung around for 10 years or perhaps even 100 years. In other words was it actually worth doing much of it at all?
2) I'm not a great fan of FIFO for clearing backlogs for precisely the reasons that you found - you keep coming across things that you are resisting which then bring you to a halt.
3) For more immediate backlogs of things like email I prefer LIFO to FIFO on the grounds that only half your correspondents will think you are an idiot; the other half will think you are brilliant.
4) For huge immoveable backlogs, there are several techniques which work well. The most systematic is the halving method (fully described in "Get Everything Done") which has the great advantage that all papers on the same subject get grouped together so that you can immediately see which are duplicated or no longer relevant.
5) The method I usually use myself* is much less systematic, but is quicker and easier. You just repeatedly go through the pile actioning any papers which stand out (meaning "stand out" in the same sense as in AF). One advantage of this method is that you soon get to know exactly what is in the pile - so if you need to find something you can lay your hands on it quickly.
* or would if I ever got backlogs which of course I don't as I am a time management guru
Now for a few observations:
1) If some of the stuff could hang around for over 5 years without apparently bringing your entire work life to a grinding halt, then one has to to ask if it couldn't equally well have hung around for 10 years or perhaps even 100 years. In other words was it actually worth doing much of it at all?
2) I'm not a great fan of FIFO for clearing backlogs for precisely the reasons that you found - you keep coming across things that you are resisting which then bring you to a halt.
3) For more immediate backlogs of things like email I prefer LIFO to FIFO on the grounds that only half your correspondents will think you are an idiot; the other half will think you are brilliant.
4) For huge immoveable backlogs, there are several techniques which work well. The most systematic is the halving method (fully described in "Get Everything Done") which has the great advantage that all papers on the same subject get grouped together so that you can immediately see which are duplicated or no longer relevant.
5) The method I usually use myself* is much less systematic, but is quicker and easier. You just repeatedly go through the pile actioning any papers which stand out (meaning "stand out" in the same sense as in AF). One advantage of this method is that you soon get to know exactly what is in the pile - so if you need to find something you can lay your hands on it quickly.
* or would if I ever got backlogs which of course I don't as I am a time management guru
July 16, 2014 at 13:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
True, most of the stuff in the pile wasn't terribly urgent, but much in it was important. Even though there were no bills, or papers needed for taxes, or formal identification cards (I know better than to put those in a pile that will be "filed sometime"), there were many papers that needed to be filed properly, like kids' school report cards, warranties for things we still have, notes from meetings with doctors, and notes from concerts that will help me tell the stories better next time. I couldn't just archive it as a unit, or throw it all away. (Yes, a good chunk was things that could have been thrown away years ago, such as the monthly school newsletter -- important to keep for a few months, but not much longer.)
I think FIFO works better for some types of backlogs than others. I find it works great for a mixed pile, where I don't know what's coming. It's random. Yes, I sometimes hit something I'm tempted to resist, but the surprise factor of "bottom of the pile", and the thrill of seeing the pile shrink, the frequent "that paper was easy", the ability to say, "I'm done up to March!" and the confidence of good discipline from enforcing FIFO, usually beats the resistance. Yes, sometimes I cheated to call big items Done, but not too often, and now that I'm aware of when I'm tempted to cheat, I have ways to reduce it. Simply moving anything I don't want to work on to the top of the pile leaves all the highly-resisted projects all together in an indigestible lump.
You're right, FIFO's not good for a pile of high-urgency, important things when it's better to drop a few than let all be a bit late. Fortunately, I rarely have to make that choice. Usually dropping less urgent projects (like keeping up with my filing) is enough. The problem is, I'm then in the habit of throwing things in the "to be filed" pile, and move on to more exiting projects.
LIFO still scares me, which might be a hold-over from the days when I had one huge backlog that I added to regularly and worked on in bursts. ABCD would become ABC- and AB--, then I'd get busy again, AB--EF, then work on it, AB--E-, then busy, ABC-E-GH. As opposed to ABCD, -BCD, -CD, --CDEF, ---DEF.
I have one more paper backlog (plus an active pile that's threatening to become one, mostly because I haven't closed the files for a few projects). I might try a blend of Halving and Standing Out. Start with the intention to Halve, but be alert for anything that Stands Out. I'm aworried that I'll avoid the half with high-resistance items, and that the high-resistance items will "stand down" and will be left for the end. I might add a "Do the half that has the first paper you touched" rule. That's hard to get going, though, since the first pass will need a long session. Hmmm, maybe make room for 3 piles. Half-A, Half-B, and "not processed".
That backlog will have to wait until I finish another project. Plenty of time to decide how to deal with it.
That active pile that threatens to become a backlog will be treated differently. It has maybe 20 items in it. What's the filing system called where when you use a file, you just put it back on the old end of the shelf? I'm using a modified version for the active pile. Each morning I take the file from the old end and deal with it. That might mean tidying and putting away properly. It might mean saying "yep, still active", tidying it a bit, and moving it to the new end. Files with long, often-touched projects won't reach the old end and get tidied, but there aren't many of them, and since they're touched often, I'll have plenty of opportunities to tidy them.
Just for reference, the next backlog is about 8 inches thick, a mix of single papers and 1cm thick folders, and everything in between. The active pile is about 6 inches.
I think FIFO works better for some types of backlogs than others. I find it works great for a mixed pile, where I don't know what's coming. It's random. Yes, I sometimes hit something I'm tempted to resist, but the surprise factor of "bottom of the pile", and the thrill of seeing the pile shrink, the frequent "that paper was easy", the ability to say, "I'm done up to March!" and the confidence of good discipline from enforcing FIFO, usually beats the resistance. Yes, sometimes I cheated to call big items Done, but not too often, and now that I'm aware of when I'm tempted to cheat, I have ways to reduce it. Simply moving anything I don't want to work on to the top of the pile leaves all the highly-resisted projects all together in an indigestible lump.
You're right, FIFO's not good for a pile of high-urgency, important things when it's better to drop a few than let all be a bit late. Fortunately, I rarely have to make that choice. Usually dropping less urgent projects (like keeping up with my filing) is enough. The problem is, I'm then in the habit of throwing things in the "to be filed" pile, and move on to more exiting projects.
LIFO still scares me, which might be a hold-over from the days when I had one huge backlog that I added to regularly and worked on in bursts. ABCD would become ABC- and AB--, then I'd get busy again, AB--EF, then work on it, AB--E-, then busy, ABC-E-GH. As opposed to ABCD, -BCD, -CD, --CDEF, ---DEF.
I have one more paper backlog (plus an active pile that's threatening to become one, mostly because I haven't closed the files for a few projects). I might try a blend of Halving and Standing Out. Start with the intention to Halve, but be alert for anything that Stands Out. I'm aworried that I'll avoid the half with high-resistance items, and that the high-resistance items will "stand down" and will be left for the end. I might add a "Do the half that has the first paper you touched" rule. That's hard to get going, though, since the first pass will need a long session. Hmmm, maybe make room for 3 piles. Half-A, Half-B, and "not processed".
That backlog will have to wait until I finish another project. Plenty of time to decide how to deal with it.
That active pile that threatens to become a backlog will be treated differently. It has maybe 20 items in it. What's the filing system called where when you use a file, you just put it back on the old end of the shelf? I'm using a modified version for the active pile. Each morning I take the file from the old end and deal with it. That might mean tidying and putting away properly. It might mean saying "yep, still active", tidying it a bit, and moving it to the new end. Files with long, often-touched projects won't reach the old end and get tidied, but there aren't many of them, and since they're touched often, I'll have plenty of opportunities to tidy them.
Just for reference, the next backlog is about 8 inches thick, a mix of single papers and 1cm thick folders, and everything in between. The active pile is about 6 inches.
July 16, 2014 at 15:36 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
I'm not sure you've quite "got" the halving method. And even if you have, repeating it won't do any harm as others may be reading this who haven't met it before.
1) Take your entire pile and decide on some category which describes very approximately half the contents. For the sake of example let's say "Home".
2) Now sort all your papers into two piles "Home" and "Everything else". Do not give the second pile a more specific name.
3) Take the "Home" pile and again think of a category which describes approximately half the contents. Let's say "Banks". Divide the papers in the "Home" file into two piles "Banks" and "Everything else". I usually put this "Everything else" pile on top of the previous "Everything else" file using some sort of divider to keep them separate.
4) Do the same thing to the "Banks" file, say "Statements" and "Everything else".
5) The "Statements" pile might be able to be divided into "Current Account" and everything else. Note that by carrying out this procedure all the Current Account statements have now come together. Once you've sorted them into the right order you can reconcile them if necessary and file them. If you haven't got a file for them already, open one.
6) Now take the top "Everything else" pile and half it in the same way. It might be "Savings Account" and "Everything else". Note that if you had only two accounts and nothing else under "Statements" you wouldn't need to halve at this stage.
7) Repeat the process with the next "Everything else" pile, and so on.
By the way this is an excellent way to construct a new filing system as you end up with all your papers filed in a logical order, e.g. "Home/Banks/Statements/Current Account" and "Home/Banks/Statements/Savings Account".
I'm not sure you've quite "got" the halving method. And even if you have, repeating it won't do any harm as others may be reading this who haven't met it before.
1) Take your entire pile and decide on some category which describes very approximately half the contents. For the sake of example let's say "Home".
2) Now sort all your papers into two piles "Home" and "Everything else". Do not give the second pile a more specific name.
3) Take the "Home" pile and again think of a category which describes approximately half the contents. Let's say "Banks". Divide the papers in the "Home" file into two piles "Banks" and "Everything else". I usually put this "Everything else" pile on top of the previous "Everything else" file using some sort of divider to keep them separate.
4) Do the same thing to the "Banks" file, say "Statements" and "Everything else".
5) The "Statements" pile might be able to be divided into "Current Account" and everything else. Note that by carrying out this procedure all the Current Account statements have now come together. Once you've sorted them into the right order you can reconcile them if necessary and file them. If you haven't got a file for them already, open one.
6) Now take the top "Everything else" pile and half it in the same way. It might be "Savings Account" and "Everything else". Note that if you had only two accounts and nothing else under "Statements" you wouldn't need to halve at this stage.
7) Repeat the process with the next "Everything else" pile, and so on.
By the way this is an excellent way to construct a new filing system as you end up with all your papers filed in a logical order, e.g. "Home/Banks/Statements/Current Account" and "Home/Banks/Statements/Savings Account".
July 17, 2014 at 16:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< True, most of the stuff in the pile wasn't terribly urgent, but much in it was important... there were many papers that needed to be filed properly, like kids' school report cards, warranties for things we still have, notes from meetings with doctors, and notes from concerts that will help me tell the stories better next time. >>
Hmmm... With all these things you mention why after five years of not having them filed has it only now become so important to have them filed? Surely the importance declines over the years? Why not just dump them all in a box and stash it in the attic?
<< I think FIFO works better for some types of backlogs than others. I find it works great for a mixed pile, where I don't know what's coming. It's random. >>
Well, no, it's not random. It's the things you've been resisting doing for the longest.
If you want random, then I suggest you use a randomizer. That can be very effective.
<< LIFO still scares me, which might be a hold-over from the days when I had one huge backlog that I added to regularly and worked on in bursts.>>
This sounds a good time to remind everyone what the three-step method for clearing a backlog is:
1) Close the backlog (i.e. nothing new gets added)
2) Get your system for dealing with new stuff right so that you don't build up another backlog.
3) Keep chipping away at the backlog.
These three steps are in order of importance. A lot of people tend to forget that Step 2 comes before and is more important than Step 3. Neither LIFO nor FIFO nor any other method will work if you forget about Step 2.
<< That backlog will have to wait until I finish another project. Plenty of time to decide how to deal with it. >>
If it's so unimportant now that it can wait, what is going to make it so important in the future that it can't wait then too?
<< True, most of the stuff in the pile wasn't terribly urgent, but much in it was important... there were many papers that needed to be filed properly, like kids' school report cards, warranties for things we still have, notes from meetings with doctors, and notes from concerts that will help me tell the stories better next time. >>
Hmmm... With all these things you mention why after five years of not having them filed has it only now become so important to have them filed? Surely the importance declines over the years? Why not just dump them all in a box and stash it in the attic?
<< I think FIFO works better for some types of backlogs than others. I find it works great for a mixed pile, where I don't know what's coming. It's random. >>
Well, no, it's not random. It's the things you've been resisting doing for the longest.
If you want random, then I suggest you use a randomizer. That can be very effective.
<< LIFO still scares me, which might be a hold-over from the days when I had one huge backlog that I added to regularly and worked on in bursts.>>
This sounds a good time to remind everyone what the three-step method for clearing a backlog is:
1) Close the backlog (i.e. nothing new gets added)
2) Get your system for dealing with new stuff right so that you don't build up another backlog.
3) Keep chipping away at the backlog.
These three steps are in order of importance. A lot of people tend to forget that Step 2 comes before and is more important than Step 3. Neither LIFO nor FIFO nor any other method will work if you forget about Step 2.
<< That backlog will have to wait until I finish another project. Plenty of time to decide how to deal with it. >>
If it's so unimportant now that it can wait, what is going to make it so important in the future that it can't wait then too?
July 17, 2014 at 16:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
If I stash the entire pile in the attic, when I give my kids their report card folders, the folders won't be complete. (Or when I show my grandkids that their parents' marks weren't as great as their parents remember -- it's a family tradition.) Also, much of the paper is now recyclable; no sense wasting attic space on it.
Most of the things in that backlog weren't high resistance on their own. Yes, the early ones were resisted more than other things I did that week, but that's a low threshold. The later ones were resisted because resistance to filing became a habit.
It's technically correct that the oldest item in the pile had been resisted longest -- but I'd only resisted it once, years ago. The rest of the resistance was to the pile as a whole. That's not the same as seeing and rejecting the oldest item multiple times.
We can call it surprise rather than random. It had many of the same benefits.
My system for incoming papers was much better even before I started work on that backlog. Not perfect, but better, and seeing pattern in the backlog helped me improve the system even more.
And, yep, I didn't start the "stop adding to it" rule until January 2009. That's another reason it took so long. The next backlog in line snuck up on me. I thought it was saving filing for a batch, until I came back from vacation and realized how large it was.
The other project is more urgent than the next backlog. Invoices have to be made before payment night. No, there's no guarantee that when I'm done the invoices I'll start working the backlog, but that's the plan, and I've moved it to a visible location. I'm also working on it for just a few minutes each day so I stay in the habit. (Who knows, that LAO of a few minutes a day might even clear it.)
Yep, I over-thought the halving method and went down the wrong path. It's _theoretically possible_, when choosing how to define the first half, especially if you don't know how many papers there are of each type, to pick something easy. I don't know if papers for the basement or papers to throw out is closer to half. Spend time counting, or just pick throw out.
But, by the time I've done a few cycles, I'll have a better idea of what's really in there, so the theory breaks.
Back to reality.
The backlog shared a shelf with my storytelling notes. Those notes now have more room, so there's less resistance to filing the new notes after each concert.
Most of the things in that backlog weren't high resistance on their own. Yes, the early ones were resisted more than other things I did that week, but that's a low threshold. The later ones were resisted because resistance to filing became a habit.
It's technically correct that the oldest item in the pile had been resisted longest -- but I'd only resisted it once, years ago. The rest of the resistance was to the pile as a whole. That's not the same as seeing and rejecting the oldest item multiple times.
We can call it surprise rather than random. It had many of the same benefits.
My system for incoming papers was much better even before I started work on that backlog. Not perfect, but better, and seeing pattern in the backlog helped me improve the system even more.
And, yep, I didn't start the "stop adding to it" rule until January 2009. That's another reason it took so long. The next backlog in line snuck up on me. I thought it was saving filing for a batch, until I came back from vacation and realized how large it was.
The other project is more urgent than the next backlog. Invoices have to be made before payment night. No, there's no guarantee that when I'm done the invoices I'll start working the backlog, but that's the plan, and I've moved it to a visible location. I'm also working on it for just a few minutes each day so I stay in the habit. (Who knows, that LAO of a few minutes a day might even clear it.)
Yep, I over-thought the halving method and went down the wrong path. It's _theoretically possible_, when choosing how to define the first half, especially if you don't know how many papers there are of each type, to pick something easy. I don't know if papers for the basement or papers to throw out is closer to half. Spend time counting, or just pick throw out.
But, by the time I've done a few cycles, I'll have a better idea of what's really in there, so the theory breaks.
Back to reality.
The backlog shared a shelf with my storytelling notes. Those notes now have more room, so there's less resistance to filing the new notes after each concert.
July 18, 2014 at 1:26 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< I don't know if papers for the basement or papers to throw out is closer to half. Spend time counting, or just pick throw out. >>
The "half" is only intended to be approximate so that you achieve something worthwhile in the sort. For instance, in the example I gave if you picked "Current Account Bank Statements" as your first category you would have had to sort the entire backlog again in order to arrive at your next category.
Sorting by subject rather than by action has several advantages:
1) The decision to throw out is made in full context. You can see which papers are duplicates or superseded because you have all the papers relating to the context together. Or if you decide that there's no point in keeping Current Account bank statements for longer than three years, then you have them all there right at your finger tips and can shred them in one batch.
2) If you need to take some action on a paper, then all the other papers relating to the subject are to hand. You don't have to go searching for them before you can take the action.
3) Because they are grouped according to subject it's easy to decide what to do with papers on a permanent basis. They are "file-ready".
4) You don't have to remember what you were going to do with a whole heap of different subjects. For instance, did I decide that old bank statements would be shredded after 6 years or 8 years? are the children's report cards going in current or archive filing? do notes for book drafts go in the basement or the attic? did I decide to keep or throw out old press cuttings? what sort of things did I decide to scan rather than keep physical copies? That sort of decision can be made when you have all the papers concerned, rather than have to keep dealing with individual papers on a piecemeal basis.
<< I don't know if papers for the basement or papers to throw out is closer to half. Spend time counting, or just pick throw out. >>
The "half" is only intended to be approximate so that you achieve something worthwhile in the sort. For instance, in the example I gave if you picked "Current Account Bank Statements" as your first category you would have had to sort the entire backlog again in order to arrive at your next category.
Sorting by subject rather than by action has several advantages:
1) The decision to throw out is made in full context. You can see which papers are duplicates or superseded because you have all the papers relating to the context together. Or if you decide that there's no point in keeping Current Account bank statements for longer than three years, then you have them all there right at your finger tips and can shred them in one batch.
2) If you need to take some action on a paper, then all the other papers relating to the subject are to hand. You don't have to go searching for them before you can take the action.
3) Because they are grouped according to subject it's easy to decide what to do with papers on a permanent basis. They are "file-ready".
4) You don't have to remember what you were going to do with a whole heap of different subjects. For instance, did I decide that old bank statements would be shredded after 6 years or 8 years? are the children's report cards going in current or archive filing? do notes for book drafts go in the basement or the attic? did I decide to keep or throw out old press cuttings? what sort of things did I decide to scan rather than keep physical copies? That sort of decision can be made when you have all the papers concerned, rather than have to keep dealing with individual papers on a piecemeal basis.
July 18, 2014 at 11:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Congratulations on your victory, Cricket, and also thank you for the thread. The way you used the backlog to learn more about your habits and areas for improvement was very educational, and I'm also glad that it prompted Mark to share again the halving technique.
I've got a filing cabinet that is set up so that I can put stuff into a "this month" folder and leave it there for two years (it's the Freedom Filer system, and there are odd-year and even-year monthly folders.) So I'm theoretically handling very few papers at a time. Most of the papers are discardable, by now, but having a pattern of ways to think about the situation makes me less likely to resist dealing with things. I have a system that is better than a pile, but it needs more habit-building and work.
I've got a filing cabinet that is set up so that I can put stuff into a "this month" folder and leave it there for two years (it's the Freedom Filer system, and there are odd-year and even-year monthly folders.) So I'm theoretically handling very few papers at a time. Most of the papers are discardable, by now, but having a pattern of ways to think about the situation makes me less likely to resist dealing with things. I have a system that is better than a pile, but it needs more habit-building and work.
July 18, 2014 at 14:06 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
Thanks RM. It feels great to put that shelf to better use.
Two years sounds like a good balance between time spent filing, ability to find things again, and space used by the filing system. (Five years was not a good balance. Easy to put things into, but impossible to find things in, [especially after I forgot when things arrived, or took things out and put them on top, so they were out of order] and too much space on things that should have been tossed. Then a huge, daunting pile to tackle.) I'm curious how well it works for you, both in the long and short term. What changes you'll make, and what you'd recommend to other people.
Mark, if I didn't already know what to do with most of the papers, yes, sorting them by subject first might have helped. Most of them, though, I could fully deal with immediately. Most were to basement files, or to EverNote, or to garbage, or to a file that already exists but I was too lazy to open at the time, or on a shelf that was too tight.
Yes, sometimes, the correct action for a paper was to sort it by subject, and deal with that subject as a separate project. The post-concert notes from that pile are now with other notes for those stories (excluding, of course, those that are caught in my more-recent backlog). Merging and purging those notes is a separate project, never intended to be dealt with as part of the backlog. That type of paper was a minor fraction of the pile, so not the key determiner of what method would work best overall.
With either method (one page at a time or finding all similar notes at once), that storytelling binder is going to wait another season or ten. (When I prep a story, I'll deal with the related notes. The other stories? I'm okay with never getting to them.)
The thought of sorting the entire pile, even just into two piles, was daunting and resisted. Little and often, dealing with what was in front of me, was doable. Many days, Little became "just another...and another".
My next pile has a different character. After declaring the first backlog, I improved my system for incoming. Improved, not perfected, obviously, since the pile still grew out of control. Still, it has a different character, since many of the changes did work, and those types of papers won't be in it. Halving might work well for it, since I suspect at about half will be basement filing. For now, though, it's in maintenance mode, little and often, which means a few papers each day rather than sorting of any type.
Two years sounds like a good balance between time spent filing, ability to find things again, and space used by the filing system. (Five years was not a good balance. Easy to put things into, but impossible to find things in, [especially after I forgot when things arrived, or took things out and put them on top, so they were out of order] and too much space on things that should have been tossed. Then a huge, daunting pile to tackle.) I'm curious how well it works for you, both in the long and short term. What changes you'll make, and what you'd recommend to other people.
Mark, if I didn't already know what to do with most of the papers, yes, sorting them by subject first might have helped. Most of them, though, I could fully deal with immediately. Most were to basement files, or to EverNote, or to garbage, or to a file that already exists but I was too lazy to open at the time, or on a shelf that was too tight.
Yes, sometimes, the correct action for a paper was to sort it by subject, and deal with that subject as a separate project. The post-concert notes from that pile are now with other notes for those stories (excluding, of course, those that are caught in my more-recent backlog). Merging and purging those notes is a separate project, never intended to be dealt with as part of the backlog. That type of paper was a minor fraction of the pile, so not the key determiner of what method would work best overall.
With either method (one page at a time or finding all similar notes at once), that storytelling binder is going to wait another season or ten. (When I prep a story, I'll deal with the related notes. The other stories? I'm okay with never getting to them.)
The thought of sorting the entire pile, even just into two piles, was daunting and resisted. Little and often, dealing with what was in front of me, was doable. Many days, Little became "just another...and another".
My next pile has a different character. After declaring the first backlog, I improved my system for incoming. Improved, not perfected, obviously, since the pile still grew out of control. Still, it has a different character, since many of the changes did work, and those types of papers won't be in it. Halving might work well for it, since I suspect at about half will be basement filing. For now, though, it's in maintenance mode, little and often, which means a few papers each day rather than sorting of any type.
July 18, 2014 at 18:44 |
Cricket
Cricket
R.M. Koske:
Thanks for mentioning the Freedom Filer system. I've not come across that before. It seems to be built on good principles.
Thanks for mentioning the Freedom Filer system. I've not come across that before. It seems to be built on good principles.
July 19, 2014 at 13:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
I think you would get through your backlog much faster if you use the other method I mention (which is what I would normally use). This is to go right through the pile dealing with papers that "stand out". Naturally it means that you do the easy ones first, but the speed at which the pile grows smaller is highly motivating.
I think you would get through your backlog much faster if you use the other method I mention (which is what I would normally use). This is to go right through the pile dealing with papers that "stand out". Naturally it means that you do the easy ones first, but the speed at which the pile grows smaller is highly motivating.
July 19, 2014 at 13:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Cricket
Because this is probably my worst weakness, maybe one or two of my methods may be of some help. (If if can help me, it will likely help most anybody.)
Firstly, my driving principle is to not allow a huge backlog to develop. I use some fake deadlines to guide me.
1. I keep the current year filed in appropriate categories with one miscellaneous proof file.
2. Since I'm forced to honor a 6 year statute of limitations, my system is based on seven years. (That's also the unit of time the IRS usually goes back if they suspect fraud.)
3. Because the law mandates that various institutions must give you all appropriate tax papers by 31 January, I use that as my deadline to have last years files culled and sorted for taxes. Here I get rid of notes that no longer apply, receipts, etc.
4. I use April 15 when taxes are due as my fake deadline for the file from seven years back. Most everything can finally be culled except "proof" items, stocks and bonds certificates, investment records, long term receipts, certain medical records, etc. I actually get a mini rush seeing the file reduced to only a relatively few items. I also feel the relief knowing that nobody can try to challenge me. Even though I've always prevailed, it's still a huge PITA to counter challenge them. This is my favorite filing chore.
5. In the interim, I must use fake deadlines to keep the current year file properly ordered. Because I truly hate, hate,hate this chore, I'll use any trick I can to honor the fake deadlines. Once in a blue moon, I'll actually get into a flow pattern and knock it out. That rarely happens so I must rely fairly heavily on using my timer for little and often. When I'm experiencing a true stalemate, I use randomization. I used to use cards, but I've discovered that using the dice is much quicker. (I can use the same list over and over and it saves on desk real estate. I have a 2" x 2" container that I use to roll the dice vs space for 2 sets of cards and fiddling with discarding them, reshuffling, etc.
Since I hate filing, rewriting illegible notes, collating papers, etc, I feel absolutely no shame using whatever cheap trick gets me to keep up with it.
Congrats with your filing victory. I had to surmount about a 2-3 year pile after I had my accident. After surgeries and physical and cognitive therapy, I saw that awful pile! I was totally overwhelmed. Mark's "It's like Walking Across a Muddy Field" gave me the principles and the plan. I relied heavily on using my timer, alternating difficult to easy work, drawing cards, .....anything that would help me with my extremely high resistance. Fake deadlines also helps to force a feeling of conscientiousness and the mental nagging that it creates. LOL!
I hope to never get a backlog like that again. Medical procedures creates smaller backlogs. As soon as I've recuperated enough, I "force" myself to pull out my bag of tricks and get going on it. (I must stay on top of medical billing because they are often in error and NEVER in favor of the patient. LOL! I'm a stickler with keep my proof files up to date (overall) but I need to kick my own arse on a regular basis to get it done. VegheadJone's idea of working the day's MIT's with yesterday's list and the general week's list has helped me to be more effective despite the fact that my attitude toward it still reeks!
Again, congrats. Facing down all of that stuff must have taken a lot of heart and determination.
Because this is probably my worst weakness, maybe one or two of my methods may be of some help. (If if can help me, it will likely help most anybody.)
Firstly, my driving principle is to not allow a huge backlog to develop. I use some fake deadlines to guide me.
1. I keep the current year filed in appropriate categories with one miscellaneous proof file.
2. Since I'm forced to honor a 6 year statute of limitations, my system is based on seven years. (That's also the unit of time the IRS usually goes back if they suspect fraud.)
3. Because the law mandates that various institutions must give you all appropriate tax papers by 31 January, I use that as my deadline to have last years files culled and sorted for taxes. Here I get rid of notes that no longer apply, receipts, etc.
4. I use April 15 when taxes are due as my fake deadline for the file from seven years back. Most everything can finally be culled except "proof" items, stocks and bonds certificates, investment records, long term receipts, certain medical records, etc. I actually get a mini rush seeing the file reduced to only a relatively few items. I also feel the relief knowing that nobody can try to challenge me. Even though I've always prevailed, it's still a huge PITA to counter challenge them. This is my favorite filing chore.
5. In the interim, I must use fake deadlines to keep the current year file properly ordered. Because I truly hate, hate,hate this chore, I'll use any trick I can to honor the fake deadlines. Once in a blue moon, I'll actually get into a flow pattern and knock it out. That rarely happens so I must rely fairly heavily on using my timer for little and often. When I'm experiencing a true stalemate, I use randomization. I used to use cards, but I've discovered that using the dice is much quicker. (I can use the same list over and over and it saves on desk real estate. I have a 2" x 2" container that I use to roll the dice vs space for 2 sets of cards and fiddling with discarding them, reshuffling, etc.
Since I hate filing, rewriting illegible notes, collating papers, etc, I feel absolutely no shame using whatever cheap trick gets me to keep up with it.
Congrats with your filing victory. I had to surmount about a 2-3 year pile after I had my accident. After surgeries and physical and cognitive therapy, I saw that awful pile! I was totally overwhelmed. Mark's "It's like Walking Across a Muddy Field" gave me the principles and the plan. I relied heavily on using my timer, alternating difficult to easy work, drawing cards, .....anything that would help me with my extremely high resistance. Fake deadlines also helps to force a feeling of conscientiousness and the mental nagging that it creates. LOL!
I hope to never get a backlog like that again. Medical procedures creates smaller backlogs. As soon as I've recuperated enough, I "force" myself to pull out my bag of tricks and get going on it. (I must stay on top of medical billing because they are often in error and NEVER in favor of the patient. LOL! I'm a stickler with keep my proof files up to date (overall) but I need to kick my own arse on a regular basis to get it done. VegheadJone's idea of working the day's MIT's with yesterday's list and the general week's list has helped me to be more effective despite the fact that my attitude toward it still reeks!
Again, congrats. Facing down all of that stuff must have taken a lot of heart and determination.
July 19, 2014 at 15:29 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
The first pile, going through it at once was intimidating. Every time I thought of looking through it all, I balked. No progress for years. I wasn't motivated by a shrinking pile because I wasn't getting close enough to the pile to make it shrink. When I finally said "a few papers a day", it felt doable, and it happened. Instead of having to go through the entire pile to find related papers, I just did a few. Yes, a few pages wasn't much progress at first, but I knew that that day's papers weren't just moved around, or declared "not in today's half" or "not standing out", they were DONE! Very satisfying. Yes, it took more sessions, and probably more hours of actual work, but once I changed method, it took three weeks -- compared to years of stalling.
That's the point -- this method worked for me, for this pile. After 4 years of fits and starts, I finally found a method that worked, and it got done. I also took the time to learn what was in the pile, and to change my incoming system so those papers are easier to deal with in the fist place.
I use halving every year end when I organize the financial records. Well, I actually use thirds or quarters. First pass is bank statements and credit cards ; investment statements ; insurance; utilities ; other (okay, that's fifths). An entire year's worth of statements takes two hours. It's definitely a powerful method.
That's the point -- this method worked for me, for this pile. After 4 years of fits and starts, I finally found a method that worked, and it got done. I also took the time to learn what was in the pile, and to change my incoming system so those papers are easier to deal with in the fist place.
I use halving every year end when I organize the financial records. Well, I actually use thirds or quarters. First pass is bank statements and credit cards ; investment statements ; insurance; utilities ; other (okay, that's fifths). An entire year's worth of statements takes two hours. It's definitely a powerful method.
July 19, 2014 at 15:31 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< I use halving every year end when I organize the financial records. Well, I actually use thirds or quarters. First pass is bank statements and credit cards ; investment statements ; insurance; utilities ; other (okay, that's fifths). >>
That's not halving. The whole point of halving is that you only have one choice to make: is it A or is it B? This reduces decision fatigue considerably.
To sort your papers using halving, you would do something like this:
Divide papers into two piles, "Statements" and "Everything else".
Divide "Statements" pile into "Bank and Credit Card statements" and "Everything else"
Divide "Bank and Credit Card statements" pile into "Bank statements" and "Everything else"
Deal with Bank statements.
The first "Everything else" pile only contains credit card statements so deal with them.
The second "Everything else" only contains investment statements so deal with them.
Now carry out the same procedure with the third "Everything else" pile.
I think you'd find this much faster and less fatiguing than the method you describe.
<< I use halving every year end when I organize the financial records. Well, I actually use thirds or quarters. First pass is bank statements and credit cards ; investment statements ; insurance; utilities ; other (okay, that's fifths). >>
That's not halving. The whole point of halving is that you only have one choice to make: is it A or is it B? This reduces decision fatigue considerably.
To sort your papers using halving, you would do something like this:
Divide papers into two piles, "Statements" and "Everything else".
Divide "Statements" pile into "Bank and Credit Card statements" and "Everything else"
Divide "Bank and Credit Card statements" pile into "Bank statements" and "Everything else"
Deal with Bank statements.
The first "Everything else" pile only contains credit card statements so deal with them.
The second "Everything else" only contains investment statements so deal with them.
Now carry out the same procedure with the third "Everything else" pile.
I think you'd find this much faster and less fatiguing than the method you describe.
July 19, 2014 at 23:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
learning:
Good to have you back with us. Some of us were getting a bit worried about whether we'd ever hear from you again.
Good to have you back with us. Some of us were getting a bit worried about whether we'd ever hear from you again.
July 19, 2014 at 23:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark
Bless your kind heart for thinking about me. I'm not really out of the woods yet...Fingers crossed that Wednesday's appointment gives me favorable results for 3 biopsies. I don't especially like my new, big indented scars. If they don't stop cutting me up and creating more and more scars, people will start calling me Mrs. Freddie Krueger! LOL! (A Nightmare on Elm Street).
Cricket's post came at a great time. With all of these procedures and tests, comes a barrage of bills! LOL!
Bless your kind heart for thinking about me. I'm not really out of the woods yet...Fingers crossed that Wednesday's appointment gives me favorable results for 3 biopsies. I don't especially like my new, big indented scars. If they don't stop cutting me up and creating more and more scars, people will start calling me Mrs. Freddie Krueger! LOL! (A Nightmare on Elm Street).
Cricket's post came at a great time. With all of these procedures and tests, comes a barrage of bills! LOL!
July 20, 2014 at 1:13 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
"That's not halving. The whole point of halving is that you only have one choice to make: is it A or is it B? This reduces decision fatigue considerably."
But does so at the greater expense, in my opinion, of the stress of having to come up with options for A and B. Plus the huge cost, in your example, of having to touch Bank Statements FOUR times by the time you're actually dealing with them, and even more for whatever's sitting in everything else.
I use a simpler and much quicker method which is akin to GTD inbox processing. Take something out, ask what it is and deal with it. Ideally don't let papers pile up in the first place (touch them even fewer times still), but we're humans with lives to enjoy, not machines, so no biggie when it happens now and again.
But does so at the greater expense, in my opinion, of the stress of having to come up with options for A and B. Plus the huge cost, in your example, of having to touch Bank Statements FOUR times by the time you're actually dealing with them, and even more for whatever's sitting in everything else.
I use a simpler and much quicker method which is akin to GTD inbox processing. Take something out, ask what it is and deal with it. Ideally don't let papers pile up in the first place (touch them even fewer times still), but we're humans with lives to enjoy, not machines, so no biggie when it happens now and again.
July 21, 2014 at 13:32 |
Chris
Chris
I don't get decision fatigue with year-end financial filing, since there are no decisions to make. There isn't even any reading. I can identify a bank or credit card statement instantly. Investments have a blue logo. Insurance has one of two logos. Utilities logos are recognized but not seen as often. Everything else is other. It's as easy as sorting cards by suit. No need for a step to sort by colour first. (If I were sorting by number, though, and didn't have room for 13 piles, I'd start with a face / non-face pass.)
For my "file it later" pile, though, trying to line up all the different shapes and envelopes and slippery things as I go through the entire pile, when LAO-FIFO works just fine? Not sensible.
For my "file it later" pile, though, trying to line up all the different shapes and envelopes and slippery things as I go through the entire pile, when LAO-FIFO works just fine? Not sensible.
July 21, 2014 at 17:57 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Mark
I was surprised with a call today to preempt my Wednesday appointment. They couldn't wait until Wednesday to tell me that I need even more surgery and possibly more.....they won't tell me why they need a second consult yet for one of the procedures about how to approach the other surgery......let the **uckin' backlogs begin.....again.... I don't know whether I'm tired of getting cut up or dealing with the paper work it creates. I'm tired of all of it....
Hopefully, I'll be ok enough again soon.....Well, back under the knife.....see you all again soon. Maybe in the interim you all will think of some more good ideas to help us all contend with the never-ending paper monster....
I was surprised with a call today to preempt my Wednesday appointment. They couldn't wait until Wednesday to tell me that I need even more surgery and possibly more.....they won't tell me why they need a second consult yet for one of the procedures about how to approach the other surgery......let the **uckin' backlogs begin.....again.... I don't know whether I'm tired of getting cut up or dealing with the paper work it creates. I'm tired of all of it....
Hopefully, I'll be ok enough again soon.....Well, back under the knife.....see you all again soon. Maybe in the interim you all will think of some more good ideas to help us all contend with the never-ending paper monster....
July 21, 2014 at 18:23 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Chris:
<< But does so at the greater expense, in my opinion, of the stress of having to come up with options for A and B. >>
You don't have to come up with options for A and B. You only have to come up with an option for A. B is everything that is not A. You can think of it at A and not-A.
<< Plus the huge cost, in your example, of having to touch Bank Statements FOUR times by the time you're actually dealing with them >>
The huge cost of touching a piece of paper four times? See my experiment with sorting cards by suit below.
<< and even more for whatever's sitting in everything else. >>
No, that's not the case. Being in an "Everything else" pile makes no difference to the number of times an item has to be touched.
<< But does so at the greater expense, in my opinion, of the stress of having to come up with options for A and B. >>
You don't have to come up with options for A and B. You only have to come up with an option for A. B is everything that is not A. You can think of it at A and not-A.
<< Plus the huge cost, in your example, of having to touch Bank Statements FOUR times by the time you're actually dealing with them >>
The huge cost of touching a piece of paper four times? See my experiment with sorting cards by suit below.
<< and even more for whatever's sitting in everything else. >>
No, that's not the case. Being in an "Everything else" pile makes no difference to the number of times an item has to be touched.
July 21, 2014 at 20:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
<< For my "file it later" pile, though, trying to line up all the different shapes and envelopes and slippery things as I go through the entire pile, when LAO-FIFO works just fine? >>
If it works fine for you, that's fine. But I thought a five-year backlog was pretty good evidence that it hadn't been working fine.
If I'd thought it had been working fine for you, I wouldn't have been attempting to give you some advice on how you could have approached it differently.
<< For my "file it later" pile, though, trying to line up all the different shapes and envelopes and slippery things as I go through the entire pile, when LAO-FIFO works just fine? >>
If it works fine for you, that's fine. But I thought a five-year backlog was pretty good evidence that it hadn't been working fine.
If I'd thought it had been working fine for you, I wouldn't have been attempting to give you some advice on how you could have approached it differently.
July 21, 2014 at 20:47 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
By the way since Cricket mentioned sorting cards by suit I thought I would try the experiment of sorting a pack of cards into suits 1) by the halving method and 2) by the normal four pile method. I've never done this before and the result was actually quite interesting. The halving method felt much easier and only took 8% longer than the four-pile method.
The reason that a method which involves sorting each card twice instead of once results in an 8% time penalty rather than a 100% time penalty is that an "A or B?" sort is far faster than an "A,B,C or D?" sort.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. In fact I recommend everyone to try it because it is a very easy way of giving you a feel for why halving works so well.
Just in case it's not clear the procedure is:
1) Shuffle a pack of playing cards well.
2) Sort it as fast as you can into red cards and black cards.
3) Sort the red cards as fast as you can into diamonds and hearts.
4) Sort the black cards as fast as you can into spades and clubs.
5) Reshuffle the cards and sort all the cards as fast as you can into four piles, one for each suit.
How did the two sorts compare?
The reason that a method which involves sorting each card twice instead of once results in an 8% time penalty rather than a 100% time penalty is that an "A or B?" sort is far faster than an "A,B,C or D?" sort.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. In fact I recommend everyone to try it because it is a very easy way of giving you a feel for why halving works so well.
Just in case it's not clear the procedure is:
1) Shuffle a pack of playing cards well.
2) Sort it as fast as you can into red cards and black cards.
3) Sort the red cards as fast as you can into diamonds and hearts.
4) Sort the black cards as fast as you can into spades and clubs.
5) Reshuffle the cards and sort all the cards as fast as you can into four piles, one for each suit.
How did the two sorts compare?
July 21, 2014 at 21:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
learning:
My best wishes go with you, and I'm sure those of all the regulars (and not-so-regulars) on this forum do too.
My best wishes go with you, and I'm sure those of all the regulars (and not-so-regulars) on this forum do too.
July 21, 2014 at 21:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I appreciate now that you were trying to help -- but I was trying to say that I found something that worked, when all the other methods generated resistance up front, or burn-out, or didn't show enough progress to keep me going. After 5 years, I took your advice and gave LAO one last try, with FIFO since it was easy and showed progress each session. (I'm at January 15! Now 19!) I'm using it on a second backlog now, and it's still working.
That card experiment is interesting. As Dad says, "Nothing ruins a good argument like data."
It reminds me of the envelope experiment to demonstrate one piece flow in Agile / Lean manufacturing. It's 1/3 faster to do each letter one-at-a-time than batch. Grab a letter, fold, insert into envelope, lick, seal, stamp, stack, then reach for the next letter, as opposed to do all the folding, then all the inserting, etc. There are a gazillion demos on YouTube. They're interesting to watch.
That card experiment is interesting. As Dad says, "Nothing ruins a good argument like data."
It reminds me of the envelope experiment to demonstrate one piece flow in Agile / Lean manufacturing. It's 1/3 faster to do each letter one-at-a-time than batch. Grab a letter, fold, insert into envelope, lick, seal, stamp, stack, then reach for the next letter, as opposed to do all the folding, then all the inserting, etc. There are a gazillion demos on YouTube. They're interesting to watch.
July 21, 2014 at 22:13 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Mark,
Thank you so much for your kind words. I apologize for inappropriately posting it. I was seeing red and my judgement is blurred. It is sort of pathetic that our medical system in the usa is set up so that some of us must worry almost as much about the billing as our odds of a successful enough recovery! LOL! Actually, it's not humorous at all....
Thank you so much for your kind words. I apologize for inappropriately posting it. I was seeing red and my judgement is blurred. It is sort of pathetic that our medical system in the usa is set up so that some of us must worry almost as much about the billing as our odds of a successful enough recovery! LOL! Actually, it's not humorous at all....
July 21, 2014 at 22:38 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Cricket:
<< It reminds me of the envelope experiment to demonstrate one piece flow in Agile / Lean manufacturing. It's 1/3 faster to do each letter one-at-a-time than batch. >>
Having just done a fair-sized envelope mailing for my Church appeal, I know which method I prefer and it ain't the one-at-a-time method!
My immediate reaction to the claim that one-at-a-time is 1/3 faster was "That's impossible!" I was intrigued enough to see if I could find one of the videos on Youtube.The one I found was at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9R1Hqr8dI . I don't know if this is a good example or not.
I analyzed where he was making up his time. The folding took about the same time in each method. Where he was gaining was in the enveloping, sealing and stamping, which he could basically do in one movement without having to reach for anything.
However when it came to the batching he had made no attempt to organize it for economy of movement, so he was taking far longer than necessary.
He was also moving at the same pace throughout both methods. Because batching involves the continuous repetition of a limited range of action, one can work up a very high speed. It's much more difficult to do this with the longer and more complicated action sequence of the one-at-a-time method.
A fairer comparison would be between two separate people who have both had time to practise their respective methods (and have no incentive to make one method faster than the other). Do you know of any videos which show this?
<< It reminds me of the envelope experiment to demonstrate one piece flow in Agile / Lean manufacturing. It's 1/3 faster to do each letter one-at-a-time than batch. >>
Having just done a fair-sized envelope mailing for my Church appeal, I know which method I prefer and it ain't the one-at-a-time method!
My immediate reaction to the claim that one-at-a-time is 1/3 faster was "That's impossible!" I was intrigued enough to see if I could find one of the videos on Youtube.The one I found was at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9R1Hqr8dI . I don't know if this is a good example or not.
I analyzed where he was making up his time. The folding took about the same time in each method. Where he was gaining was in the enveloping, sealing and stamping, which he could basically do in one movement without having to reach for anything.
However when it came to the batching he had made no attempt to organize it for economy of movement, so he was taking far longer than necessary.
He was also moving at the same pace throughout both methods. Because batching involves the continuous repetition of a limited range of action, one can work up a very high speed. It's much more difficult to do this with the longer and more complicated action sequence of the one-at-a-time method.
A fairer comparison would be between two separate people who have both had time to practise their respective methods (and have no incentive to make one method faster than the other). Do you know of any videos which show this?
July 21, 2014 at 23:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I just remembered that I've personally used something similar to halving quite extensively and was impressed with how easy it was. It isn't halving because it makes far more than one decision at a time, but for alphabetizing it works beautifully.
I had a summer job in college with people making a "Who's Who" book, and we had to sort piles of photographs by the last names of the subjects (which were written on the back.) The process went like this:
Sort into three piles: A-H, I-P, Q-Z.
Set aside A-H and I-P, and sort Q-Z into individual letters.
Set aside all piles except Z, and sort it by last name (since it will be small.)
Sort Y on top of that.
Sort X on top of that.
And so on. For any large sets (W is one, and B), divide it again by the second letter of the last name into A-H, I-P, Q-Z. You can keep breaking piles into smaller sets as needed. I would say that for any set of more than five, it is worth the time to break it into a smaller set.
If you always start with the set that is lowest in the alphabet, you end up with a pile that is alphabetized A-Z without a lot of thinking.
Of course, for full sheets of paper, the space to spread out the piles might be a problem. For photos it worked well and had the advantage of allowing a team of people to tackle one set-to-be-ordered without getting into each others' way. For the truly large sets, we'd use post-it notes to label the piles so we weren't constantly reminding ourselves which piles were which.
It could be done by halving in nearly the same way, of course, with more sub-sorts, but I'd be reluctant to do that for anything less than an enormous sort pile. I'm not sure if it is the number of categories (I'd think most standard filing piles wouldn't have 26) that makes me reluctant? Or maybe it is the ultimate desired granularity of the sort? Once you have a pile of bank statements, I personally wouldn't bother to sort them into date order, but to truly alphabetize a pile by name, it has to go all the way to "Williams, John B" coming before "Williams, John R." Maybe at that scale the mental overhead involved in figuring out what the half is becomes overwhelming. And of course, I haven't tried a halving sort yet. It might be perfect and not overwhelming at all.
Remembering how painless those sorting sessions were makes me more eager to try halving the next time I have a pile of papers to deal with.
I had a summer job in college with people making a "Who's Who" book, and we had to sort piles of photographs by the last names of the subjects (which were written on the back.) The process went like this:
Sort into three piles: A-H, I-P, Q-Z.
Set aside A-H and I-P, and sort Q-Z into individual letters.
Set aside all piles except Z, and sort it by last name (since it will be small.)
Sort Y on top of that.
Sort X on top of that.
And so on. For any large sets (W is one, and B), divide it again by the second letter of the last name into A-H, I-P, Q-Z. You can keep breaking piles into smaller sets as needed. I would say that for any set of more than five, it is worth the time to break it into a smaller set.
If you always start with the set that is lowest in the alphabet, you end up with a pile that is alphabetized A-Z without a lot of thinking.
Of course, for full sheets of paper, the space to spread out the piles might be a problem. For photos it worked well and had the advantage of allowing a team of people to tackle one set-to-be-ordered without getting into each others' way. For the truly large sets, we'd use post-it notes to label the piles so we weren't constantly reminding ourselves which piles were which.
It could be done by halving in nearly the same way, of course, with more sub-sorts, but I'd be reluctant to do that for anything less than an enormous sort pile. I'm not sure if it is the number of categories (I'd think most standard filing piles wouldn't have 26) that makes me reluctant? Or maybe it is the ultimate desired granularity of the sort? Once you have a pile of bank statements, I personally wouldn't bother to sort them into date order, but to truly alphabetize a pile by name, it has to go all the way to "Williams, John B" coming before "Williams, John R." Maybe at that scale the mental overhead involved in figuring out what the half is becomes overwhelming. And of course, I haven't tried a halving sort yet. It might be perfect and not overwhelming at all.
Remembering how painless those sorting sessions were makes me more eager to try halving the next time I have a pile of papers to deal with.
July 22, 2014 at 15:55 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
I've used halving to sort documents into alphabetical order of surname several times, though the number would be about 250 which I suspect is quite a bit smaller than your photo sort.
It works very well. With a halving sort there is no need to label the piles. It will all come together in the end quite automatically.
I've also used halving to sort a large number of documents into date order. Again very easy.
Oh, and another use is to count a large quantity of mixed coins. It's surprising how few people know how to count coins accurately. That is something I learned to my cost when I farmed out several hundred collecting boxes to an enthusiastic group of ten or so volunteers to count exactly what was in each box. I decided to do a few random checks of accuracy and found to my horror that they were all wrong. I ended up counting the lot myself, and out of all the volunteers only one got even a single one of her boxes right (she got them all right).
Other things I've used halving for:
- Reorganizing an office (objects instead of paper)
- Planning (ideas instead of paper)
- Getting up-to-date with tasks (tasks instead of paper)
- Reorganizing an entire filing system (taking the paper out of all my existing files and sorting it into new files)
- Weeding the contents of a single file.
I've used halving to sort documents into alphabetical order of surname several times, though the number would be about 250 which I suspect is quite a bit smaller than your photo sort.
It works very well. With a halving sort there is no need to label the piles. It will all come together in the end quite automatically.
I've also used halving to sort a large number of documents into date order. Again very easy.
Oh, and another use is to count a large quantity of mixed coins. It's surprising how few people know how to count coins accurately. That is something I learned to my cost when I farmed out several hundred collecting boxes to an enthusiastic group of ten or so volunteers to count exactly what was in each box. I decided to do a few random checks of accuracy and found to my horror that they were all wrong. I ended up counting the lot myself, and out of all the volunteers only one got even a single one of her boxes right (she got them all right).
Other things I've used halving for:
- Reorganizing an office (objects instead of paper)
- Planning (ideas instead of paper)
- Getting up-to-date with tasks (tasks instead of paper)
- Reorganizing an entire filing system (taking the paper out of all my existing files and sorting it into new files)
- Weeding the contents of a single file.
July 22, 2014 at 18:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, I've only seen a few others, and they show same things. The batchers dpn't take the few seconds to optimize their workstations, yet the 1-piecers do.
Not speeding up as you learn the moves is appropriate if you're modeling machines that don't benefit from muscle memory and can't be further optimized. (Or if the batches are so long you risk repetitive strain injury.)
However, as you pointed out, that doesn't always apply. Bottle-neck stations can usually be optimized, or the step boundaries moved so less is done at that station.
One video had two teams of two, but each person did their own ten envelopes. One of the batchers was clearly frustrated at being behind. She finally broke down and pulled her water dish closer. (The workshop had obviously skipped the part about the worker adjusting the process to make it easier, rather than waiting for management to do it for her.) The 1-piece-flow people just optimized things without thinking.
One piece flow encourages us to think about the big picture. What can I do at this step to help my coworker at the next step? What can I ask the person before me to change to make my job easier? (And is he doing anything that he thinks helps me, but doesn't really?) How can I reduce traffic overall? (Often move testing closer to the step that needs to be tested, and making the test simple enough that the you don't have to wait for the lab to do it.) How can I catch and fix problems quickly, before making thousands of bad parts? How can I reduce the cost of inventory between stations? Are there any bottleneck operations? Would better communication between the stations help?
There are also stories of one-piece-flow carried too far, such as carrying each item to the next machine one-by-one, and people needing to learn many different skills so they can do all the steps.
++++
Check out edge notch cards.
http://www.cutoutfoldup.com/402-self-sorting-cards.php
This used to be a common method of sorting huge databases. Back in the 1980s the Ottawa library used it.
It's sad how many neat systems aren't used any more. Learning how they work would help people realize how large "outside the box" really is.
++++
I wonder if it makes a difference if the "touching" takes a long time compared to the "thinking" part? If more time is spent moving each thing to a sub-pile than deciding which pile? If the full decision is complicated, but the first part is quick and touching takes little time (such as RM's photos)?
The playing card experiment proves that my assumption of "touch once is faster in all cases" is false. It's definitely worth trying halving.
Not speeding up as you learn the moves is appropriate if you're modeling machines that don't benefit from muscle memory and can't be further optimized. (Or if the batches are so long you risk repetitive strain injury.)
However, as you pointed out, that doesn't always apply. Bottle-neck stations can usually be optimized, or the step boundaries moved so less is done at that station.
One video had two teams of two, but each person did their own ten envelopes. One of the batchers was clearly frustrated at being behind. She finally broke down and pulled her water dish closer. (The workshop had obviously skipped the part about the worker adjusting the process to make it easier, rather than waiting for management to do it for her.) The 1-piece-flow people just optimized things without thinking.
One piece flow encourages us to think about the big picture. What can I do at this step to help my coworker at the next step? What can I ask the person before me to change to make my job easier? (And is he doing anything that he thinks helps me, but doesn't really?) How can I reduce traffic overall? (Often move testing closer to the step that needs to be tested, and making the test simple enough that the you don't have to wait for the lab to do it.) How can I catch and fix problems quickly, before making thousands of bad parts? How can I reduce the cost of inventory between stations? Are there any bottleneck operations? Would better communication between the stations help?
There are also stories of one-piece-flow carried too far, such as carrying each item to the next machine one-by-one, and people needing to learn many different skills so they can do all the steps.
++++
Check out edge notch cards.
http://www.cutoutfoldup.com/402-self-sorting-cards.php
This used to be a common method of sorting huge databases. Back in the 1980s the Ottawa library used it.
It's sad how many neat systems aren't used any more. Learning how they work would help people realize how large "outside the box" really is.
++++
I wonder if it makes a difference if the "touching" takes a long time compared to the "thinking" part? If more time is spent moving each thing to a sub-pile than deciding which pile? If the full decision is complicated, but the first part is quick and touching takes little time (such as RM's photos)?
The playing card experiment proves that my assumption of "touch once is faster in all cases" is false. It's definitely worth trying halving.
July 22, 2014 at 19:08 |
Cricket
Cricket
I think the main obstacle I'm running into, Mark, is that I keep thinking in terms of defining two search terms, not "this and everything else." When I force myself into that, the concept gets much less overwhelming. I need to dig out a deck of cards and prove to myself that you're right. Practicing that mode of thinking is also likely to be useful and make me faster at choosing halves. I love that the tool is so versatile, now I just need to learn it well enough to reach for it when it will do the trick.
I don't have a particular comment on the batching conversation, though I'm following it with interest, but funnily enough right after I closed this page earlier today I found an article on another site where someone was experimenting with it as well.
http://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/power-small-batches/
(And oh, Cricket, I have so many awkward conversations at work about people trying to make things easier for me and but not succeeding. "If you're putting that in a folder/stapling it/printing it out extra-large before you give it to me for your own benefit, that's great, I don't care. But if you're doing it for me, I don't need or want a folder/staples/big pages so you can save the effort.")
I don't have a particular comment on the batching conversation, though I'm following it with interest, but funnily enough right after I closed this page earlier today I found an article on another site where someone was experimenting with it as well.
http://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/power-small-batches/
(And oh, Cricket, I have so many awkward conversations at work about people trying to make things easier for me and but not succeeding. "If you're putting that in a folder/stapling it/printing it out extra-large before you give it to me for your own benefit, that's great, I don't care. But if you're doing it for me, I don't need or want a folder/staples/big pages so you can save the effort.")
July 22, 2014 at 20:41 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
Cricket:
<< However, as you pointed out, that doesn't always apply. Bottle-neck stations can usually be optimized, or the step boundaries moved so less is done at that station. >>
My observations on one-piece flow were purely concerned with it as a tool for individuals to do repetitious jobs. About one-piece flow as an industrial process I have nothing to say, though I'd be interested to know how many mass car manufacturers (the classic assembly line) now use one-piece flow instead.
I personally would always use the batch method in preference to one-piece flow for two reasons: 1) if it's properly organized, it's faster (and I would be prepared to demonstrate that!), 2) it's less strain on the operator, for much the same reason that halving is - you only have to think about one thing at a time.
<< However, as you pointed out, that doesn't always apply. Bottle-neck stations can usually be optimized, or the step boundaries moved so less is done at that station. >>
My observations on one-piece flow were purely concerned with it as a tool for individuals to do repetitious jobs. About one-piece flow as an industrial process I have nothing to say, though I'd be interested to know how many mass car manufacturers (the classic assembly line) now use one-piece flow instead.
I personally would always use the batch method in preference to one-piece flow for two reasons: 1) if it's properly organized, it's faster (and I would be prepared to demonstrate that!), 2) it's less strain on the operator, for much the same reason that halving is - you only have to think about one thing at a time.
July 22, 2014 at 21:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket (again):
<< Check out edge notch cards. http://www.cutoutfoldup.com/402-self-sorting-cards.php >>
Obviously I made a mistake when I called it "the halving method". If I'd called it "the binary sort method" everyone would be queuing up to use it!
<< Check out edge notch cards. http://www.cutoutfoldup.com/402-self-sorting-cards.php >>
Obviously I made a mistake when I called it "the halving method". If I'd called it "the binary sort method" everyone would be queuing up to use it!
July 22, 2014 at 21:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket (yet again):
<< I wonder if it makes a difference if the "touching" takes a long time compared to the "thinking" part? >>
I think both are important. In the envelope video, the difference in time was due to the different "touching" times between the two methods. But I'd be willing to bet that if the demonstrator had 200 envelopes to stuff instead of ten, he would have preferred the batch method however much longer it took!
<< I wonder if it makes a difference if the "touching" takes a long time compared to the "thinking" part? >>
I think both are important. In the envelope video, the difference in time was due to the different "touching" times between the two methods. But I'd be willing to bet that if the demonstrator had 200 envelopes to stuff instead of ten, he would have preferred the batch method however much longer it took!
July 22, 2014 at 21:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
R.M. Koske:
<< I think the main obstacle I'm running into, Mark, is that I keep thinking in terms of defining two search terms, not "this and everything else." When I force myself into that, the concept gets much less overwhelming. >>
Think binary. If it matches the search key then it returns a 1. If it doesn't it returns a null (0).
<< earlier today I found an article on another site where someone was experimenting with it as well. http://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/power-small-batches/ >>
Thanks for that - very interesting. I've left a short comment on his article.
<< I think the main obstacle I'm running into, Mark, is that I keep thinking in terms of defining two search terms, not "this and everything else." When I force myself into that, the concept gets much less overwhelming. >>
Think binary. If it matches the search key then it returns a 1. If it doesn't it returns a null (0).
<< earlier today I found an article on another site where someone was experimenting with it as well. http://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/power-small-batches/ >>
Thanks for that - very interesting. I've left a short comment on his article.
July 22, 2014 at 22:01 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
RM, I hear you. So many people make assumptions about what we need, based on what the previous person to do your job needed, or how they think you do your job. It's also hard to get people to do less work, even if it's duplicated, unnecessary, or even causing problems. I did ISO-9002 at a foundry, documenting procedures and preparing for quality audits. It was challenging, since the new QA auditors were thorough. (Even more fun was auditing our suppliers. They often told me what they thought I wanted to hear about their system, rather than what they really did. Of course, as soon as I got onto the floor I'd learn the truth, and it would take the rest of the afternoon to convince them that they could tell me the truth and still pass with minor recommendations (such as fix their documentation), but lying would give me no choice but to fail them.)
That power-of-small-batches article is neat. A counter-example for the envelope example, and a further experiment, looking at the reasons for the difference.
And you're right, it's hard to break the "A or B" habit, and use "A or not-A".
Mark, it's fun reading about the Lean Manufacturing and the history of the Toyota Way, including the One Minute Die Change. Lots of rethinking of assumptions, and time spent making the process more flexible that paid off handsomely. These were large systems, with a large capital investment.
I really enjoyed this article, comparing Agile Programming to what happens on a real construction site (as opposed to what non-construction people think happens).
http://www.leanessays.com/2002/03/lean-construction.html
I tried halving on the clean laundry today. "Large item or not", then by "adult or not", then by "hang or not", then "my end of the closet or not". I chose large item first because it's hard to find all the socks when the towels are in the way. It's hard to tell, but I think it worked better than "person", and moving between ends of the closet when hanging.
So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? I used to count pizza money, and always felt there was a faster way, but no matter what I changed, it still felt awkward. The plastic sleeves of the right size were worth the extra cost.
That power-of-small-batches article is neat. A counter-example for the envelope example, and a further experiment, looking at the reasons for the difference.
And you're right, it's hard to break the "A or B" habit, and use "A or not-A".
Mark, it's fun reading about the Lean Manufacturing and the history of the Toyota Way, including the One Minute Die Change. Lots of rethinking of assumptions, and time spent making the process more flexible that paid off handsomely. These were large systems, with a large capital investment.
I really enjoyed this article, comparing Agile Programming to what happens on a real construction site (as opposed to what non-construction people think happens).
http://www.leanessays.com/2002/03/lean-construction.html
I tried halving on the clean laundry today. "Large item or not", then by "adult or not", then by "hang or not", then "my end of the closet or not". I chose large item first because it's hard to find all the socks when the towels are in the way. It's hard to tell, but I think it worked better than "person", and moving between ends of the closet when hanging.
So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? I used to count pizza money, and always felt there was a faster way, but no matter what I changed, it still felt awkward. The plastic sleeves of the right size were worth the extra cost.
July 22, 2014 at 22:27 |
Cricket
Cricket
All this talk of halving, and the idea of applying halving to tasks, made me think of this:
http://soulsalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Today-and-Not-Today.pdf
The idea is to divide tasks into Today and Not Today only. Then divide Today into Critical and Not Critical. Not tried it in the trenches but it may help with the decision fatigue of trying to prioritise a long list, if you like to work with prioritised todo lists.
Matt
http://soulsalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Today-and-Not-Today.pdf
The idea is to divide tasks into Today and Not Today only. Then divide Today into Critical and Not Critical. Not tried it in the trenches but it may help with the decision fatigue of trying to prioritise a long list, if you like to work with prioritised todo lists.
Matt
July 23, 2014 at 9:50 |
Matt Gregory
Matt Gregory
Cricket:
<< So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? I used to count pizza money, and always felt there was a faster way, but no matter what I changed, it still felt awkward. The plastic sleeves of the right size were worth the extra cost. >>
For British currency, assuming all coins are in use:
1. Spread the whole lot on a flat surface.
2. In Britain we have three colours of coins: gold, silver and bronze. First sort is for "Gold & Silver". The sorts are easily done by sliding coins en mass on the flat surface.
3. Second sort is "Gold".
4. Third sort is "£2 coins". Once you've extracted the £2 coins count and bag them. If you have no plastic sleeves or other devices, arrange the coins in towers of (say) £20 so you can make them of equal height without having to count more than one tower (apart from the incomplete one at the end).
5. Now count and bag the £1 coins. (No need for a further sort here as there are only two types of coin in the "Gold" category).
6. Now turn your attention to the remaining coins in the "Gold & Silver" pile. These are now all silver. Sort for "Funny shaped coins". There are two funny shaped coins: 50p and 20p.
7. Sort for "50p coins". Count and bag.
8. Count and bag the 20p coins.
9. The remaining coins in "Gold & Silver" are 10p and 5p coins.
10. Sort for "10p coins". Count and bag.
11. Count and bag the 5p coins.
12. All remaining coins are bronze, either 2p or 1p. Sort for "2p coins". Count and bag.
13. Count and bag the 1p coins.
Or buy a coin sorting machine.
(Personally I can never be bothered with steps 12 and 13 if it's my own money I'm counting. I just scoop the lot up and give them as a present to some person who is under the delusion that because there are a lot of coins they must be worth something)
<< So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? I used to count pizza money, and always felt there was a faster way, but no matter what I changed, it still felt awkward. The plastic sleeves of the right size were worth the extra cost. >>
For British currency, assuming all coins are in use:
1. Spread the whole lot on a flat surface.
2. In Britain we have three colours of coins: gold, silver and bronze. First sort is for "Gold & Silver". The sorts are easily done by sliding coins en mass on the flat surface.
3. Second sort is "Gold".
4. Third sort is "£2 coins". Once you've extracted the £2 coins count and bag them. If you have no plastic sleeves or other devices, arrange the coins in towers of (say) £20 so you can make them of equal height without having to count more than one tower (apart from the incomplete one at the end).
5. Now count and bag the £1 coins. (No need for a further sort here as there are only two types of coin in the "Gold" category).
6. Now turn your attention to the remaining coins in the "Gold & Silver" pile. These are now all silver. Sort for "Funny shaped coins". There are two funny shaped coins: 50p and 20p.
7. Sort for "50p coins". Count and bag.
8. Count and bag the 20p coins.
9. The remaining coins in "Gold & Silver" are 10p and 5p coins.
10. Sort for "10p coins". Count and bag.
11. Count and bag the 5p coins.
12. All remaining coins are bronze, either 2p or 1p. Sort for "2p coins". Count and bag.
13. Count and bag the 1p coins.
Or buy a coin sorting machine.
(Personally I can never be bothered with steps 12 and 13 if it's my own money I'm counting. I just scoop the lot up and give them as a present to some person who is under the delusion that because there are a lot of coins they must be worth something)
July 23, 2014 at 10:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Matt Gregory:
<< The idea is to divide tasks into Today and Not Today only. Then divide Today into Critical and Not Critical. Not tried it in the trenches but it may help with the decision fatigue of trying to prioritise a long list, if you like to work with prioritised todo lists. >>
Yes, I've tried it using various different categories. In fact you can continue halving until you get down to one task which you then do. The main problem with that is that the halving structure is best suited to things that are going to stay still long enough to complete the sort. It's not flexible enough to cope with a constant influx of new tasks and shifting priorities of existing tasks.
<< The idea is to divide tasks into Today and Not Today only. Then divide Today into Critical and Not Critical. Not tried it in the trenches but it may help with the decision fatigue of trying to prioritise a long list, if you like to work with prioritised todo lists. >>
Yes, I've tried it using various different categories. In fact you can continue halving until you get down to one task which you then do. The main problem with that is that the halving structure is best suited to things that are going to stay still long enough to complete the sort. It's not flexible enough to cope with a constant influx of new tasks and shifting priorities of existing tasks.
July 23, 2014 at 10:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi all
Just for fun....As a croupier, those of us who learned what 20 chips felt like and how to quickly pick them up and place them down in exact amounts (example feel 3, 10, 11, etc without seeing) made us much faster. Of course, in all games the objective is to pace the game as quickly as possible to help ensure the long term odds prevail. In roulette, the racker (person behind the dealer cleaning and setting up payouts) had to clean up hundreds of cheques AND send the payouts to the dealer as fast as possible. Bottom line, you only look to see the color. Like Mark says, you choose one color and totally clean that color up even if it's hundreds. Then the next color. As you pick up the checks, you can feel when you have exactly twenty. Then you pile the twenty cheque piles in the formation that is easiest to move. When you're moving over 200 cheques across the table and zigzagging them between the winning bets, formation and proper pressure counts.) With coins, just choose one type and stack it when you have twenty in your hand. You can see by the piles how much money you have in each denomination. THEN you can put them into the containers. It takes awhile before you learn how to ACCURATELY touch count vs counting the coins/cheques individually. Of course, coins are a bit small and more slippery but it's learnable and doable.
Mark, I remember when I was a child, my dad showed me 100 pennies. I was shocked at how few there were. I thought 100 coins would fill a room! LOL! We also learned to ask for us coins because we got much more candy with a dollar vs a mark. (This was the 1950's. I don't know the current exchange rate.) LOL!
Just for fun....As a croupier, those of us who learned what 20 chips felt like and how to quickly pick them up and place them down in exact amounts (example feel 3, 10, 11, etc without seeing) made us much faster. Of course, in all games the objective is to pace the game as quickly as possible to help ensure the long term odds prevail. In roulette, the racker (person behind the dealer cleaning and setting up payouts) had to clean up hundreds of cheques AND send the payouts to the dealer as fast as possible. Bottom line, you only look to see the color. Like Mark says, you choose one color and totally clean that color up even if it's hundreds. Then the next color. As you pick up the checks, you can feel when you have exactly twenty. Then you pile the twenty cheque piles in the formation that is easiest to move. When you're moving over 200 cheques across the table and zigzagging them between the winning bets, formation and proper pressure counts.) With coins, just choose one type and stack it when you have twenty in your hand. You can see by the piles how much money you have in each denomination. THEN you can put them into the containers. It takes awhile before you learn how to ACCURATELY touch count vs counting the coins/cheques individually. Of course, coins are a bit small and more slippery but it's learnable and doable.
Mark, I remember when I was a child, my dad showed me 100 pennies. I was shocked at how few there were. I thought 100 coins would fill a room! LOL! We also learned to ask for us coins because we got much more candy with a dollar vs a mark. (This was the 1950's. I don't know the current exchange rate.) LOL!
July 23, 2014 at 13:20 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
I wondered about halving and coins, and now I see - there are only four common US coins and I'm not sure there's a logical half for them (only one large coin, only one small, only one copper), so it moves pretty quickly into "pull out all the pennies." Unless I'm thinking in two categories instead of binary again?
For the actual counting if I don't need to roll the coins, I'm a fan of putting a fistful of coins in both hands and counting by twos, dropping one from each hand as I go. With pennies and dimes, the counts are obvious. For nickels, you drop two and count by tens. "Ten, twenty, thirty, forty....." For quarters, by fifties. "50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300..." It feels like the mental overhead is lower.
When I have to roll them, I want stacks like Learning.
For the actual counting if I don't need to roll the coins, I'm a fan of putting a fistful of coins in both hands and counting by twos, dropping one from each hand as I go. With pennies and dimes, the counts are obvious. For nickels, you drop two and count by tens. "Ten, twenty, thirty, forty....." For quarters, by fifties. "50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300..." It feels like the mental overhead is lower.
When I have to roll them, I want stacks like Learning.
July 23, 2014 at 14:03 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
Cricket :
<< So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? >>
A DIY coin counter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCRAmePDHnU
<< So, what is the fastest way to sort and count coins? >>
A DIY coin counter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCRAmePDHnU
July 23, 2014 at 14:48 |
Laurent
Laurent
RM, the half probably depends on what's in the bin. If there aren't many copper coins, then pulling out copper won't halve the pile.
Mark, are the gold coins also of higher value? If so, another benefit to doing them first is if you have to stop in the middle, the high value coins will be done.
Mark, are the gold coins also of higher value? If so, another benefit to doing them first is if you have to stop in the middle, the high value coins will be done.
July 23, 2014 at 15:51 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi R.M. Koske
Believe it or not, we'd actually get lots of tips in coins! I lady once wanted to tip me 50 cents for managing her bets and had her win over $1,000 with a $100 buy in in twenty minutes. The boxman intercepted it and threw it back at the lady. (It was a $2.50 chip and she wanted the box to give her $2 and put the remaining 50 cents for the dealers. He went ballistic and threw it back at her. I secretly loved him for it because dealers must be totally polite even when you catch them stealing. LOL!
At the end of the night, we'd count all the tips for the night shift. The tips are equally split based on the hours you worked. For coins, we'd choose pennies first and drop cut them in units of 5. Then stack four of them to make 20 high. Then we'd just take a handful and size into the twenty high (called sizing into the stack). That's much faster and good for the dealers who hadn't yet learned how to know amounts just by feeling what's in your hand without looking. Then we'd choose quarters, then dimes, then nickels as that was visually easier just like Mark states. When you have hundreds of coins or chips, you focus on only one color or size and use both hands simultaneously to pick them up quickly. Coins are more slippery and smaller than cheques but after awhile you get good at it. Once you have the 20 high stack, you just drop your coins in your hand in the shape of a stack and with your middle finger slice off the extra if it's more than 20. (Better to have 20 or more because adding coins to make a full stack takes much longer to fiddle with adding coins without the stack toppling over. Clipping one or two off the top takes less than a second. LOL!
p.s. One of my friends received a $50K tip but when it was split with the entire shift, she only brought home less than $700 for the week! I actually felt really bad for her! LOL!
Believe it or not, we'd actually get lots of tips in coins! I lady once wanted to tip me 50 cents for managing her bets and had her win over $1,000 with a $100 buy in in twenty minutes. The boxman intercepted it and threw it back at the lady. (It was a $2.50 chip and she wanted the box to give her $2 and put the remaining 50 cents for the dealers. He went ballistic and threw it back at her. I secretly loved him for it because dealers must be totally polite even when you catch them stealing. LOL!
At the end of the night, we'd count all the tips for the night shift. The tips are equally split based on the hours you worked. For coins, we'd choose pennies first and drop cut them in units of 5. Then stack four of them to make 20 high. Then we'd just take a handful and size into the twenty high (called sizing into the stack). That's much faster and good for the dealers who hadn't yet learned how to know amounts just by feeling what's in your hand without looking. Then we'd choose quarters, then dimes, then nickels as that was visually easier just like Mark states. When you have hundreds of coins or chips, you focus on only one color or size and use both hands simultaneously to pick them up quickly. Coins are more slippery and smaller than cheques but after awhile you get good at it. Once you have the 20 high stack, you just drop your coins in your hand in the shape of a stack and with your middle finger slice off the extra if it's more than 20. (Better to have 20 or more because adding coins to make a full stack takes much longer to fiddle with adding coins without the stack toppling over. Clipping one or two off the top takes less than a second. LOL!
p.s. One of my friends received a $50K tip but when it was split with the entire shift, she only brought home less than $700 for the week! I actually felt really bad for her! LOL!
July 23, 2014 at 22:53 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Hi Cricket
You're not actually trying to halve the pile, you're simply trying to segregate the different coins. Mark's totally correct. When you have hundreds of cheques or coins in a huge, messy pile, it's much faster to focus only on one color or one size at a time. In craps, we'd rarely sweep the layout because there were lots of active bets after a deciding roll especially pass or seven out. Plus you must watch the customers as you sweep the losers and watch the winning bets so that they won't cap (add to their bet) or shave (remove from their bet) and pay all the bets on the layout while also making sure that an unscrupulous customer doesn't take somebody else's money. Craps had some hard core customers. LOL! In roulette, if a customer was betting hundreds of cheques each spin, you'd choose that color first so that you could have them ready for the next spin. If there were several customers betting hundreds of checks each roll, sometimes the floor person would jump in and give you a hand. Four hands is always better than two. LOL! When you must be speedy, focusing on only one color is the fastest way to clean up the pile of hundreds of checks within a minute or so plus set up the payouts which were many times hundreds of cheques also. Yes, it's boring and fatiguing. LOL! That's why I preferred craps. It was far less boring and sometimes quite challenging and....fun? LOL!
You're not actually trying to halve the pile, you're simply trying to segregate the different coins. Mark's totally correct. When you have hundreds of cheques or coins in a huge, messy pile, it's much faster to focus only on one color or one size at a time. In craps, we'd rarely sweep the layout because there were lots of active bets after a deciding roll especially pass or seven out. Plus you must watch the customers as you sweep the losers and watch the winning bets so that they won't cap (add to their bet) or shave (remove from their bet) and pay all the bets on the layout while also making sure that an unscrupulous customer doesn't take somebody else's money. Craps had some hard core customers. LOL! In roulette, if a customer was betting hundreds of cheques each spin, you'd choose that color first so that you could have them ready for the next spin. If there were several customers betting hundreds of checks each roll, sometimes the floor person would jump in and give you a hand. Four hands is always better than two. LOL! When you must be speedy, focusing on only one color is the fastest way to clean up the pile of hundreds of checks within a minute or so plus set up the payouts which were many times hundreds of cheques also. Yes, it's boring and fatiguing. LOL! That's why I preferred craps. It was far less boring and sometimes quite challenging and....fun? LOL!
July 23, 2014 at 23:21 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
learning:
<< As a croupier, those of us who learned what 20 chips felt like and how to quickly pick them up and place them down in exact amounts (example feel 3, 10, 11, etc without seeing) made us much faster. >>
It's surprising how sensitive we are to weight. Just the other day I realised that two identical-looking mugs felt different weight-wise, so I weighed them and I was right. Then I experimented with every set of identical pottery I could find and found I could put them in order of weight every time. It didn't matter whether I picked them up one after the other in the same hand, or at the same time in opposite hands.
Obviously it would be more difficult if you were judging if something were the right weight on its own, but I don't think that it would by any means be impossible, especially if you've also got size to help you.
<< As a croupier, those of us who learned what 20 chips felt like and how to quickly pick them up and place them down in exact amounts (example feel 3, 10, 11, etc without seeing) made us much faster. >>
It's surprising how sensitive we are to weight. Just the other day I realised that two identical-looking mugs felt different weight-wise, so I weighed them and I was right. Then I experimented with every set of identical pottery I could find and found I could put them in order of weight every time. It didn't matter whether I picked them up one after the other in the same hand, or at the same time in opposite hands.
Obviously it would be more difficult if you were judging if something were the right weight on its own, but I don't think that it would by any means be impossible, especially if you've also got size to help you.
July 24, 2014 at 14:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
R.M. Koske:
<< I wondered about halving and coins, and now I see - there are only four common US coins and I'm not sure there's a logical half for them (only one large coin, only one small, only one copper), so it moves pretty quickly into "pull out all the pennies." Unless I'm thinking in two categories instead of binary again? >>
If there's no logical pattern imposed by shape or colour, then I'd go for the two largest denomination coins for your first sort. The "halves" only have to be approximate - in some cases that would be very approximate.
<<For the actual counting if I don't need to roll the coins >>
If by roll the coins you mean putting them in a roll, then the usual reason for counting large quantities of coins is to pay them into a bank - and they need to be in rolls for that. British banks now use small transparent plastic bags which are much easier, but they still need to be filled with the correct amount.
<< I'm a fan of putting a fistful of coins in both hands and counting by twos, dropping one from each hand as I go. >>
If you're using a flat surface like a table top for the counting, all you have to do is slide the coins with one hand into the other hand held just below the level of edge of the table. Once you've got the correct number in your hand you just tip them from your hand into the bag.
<< I wondered about halving and coins, and now I see - there are only four common US coins and I'm not sure there's a logical half for them (only one large coin, only one small, only one copper), so it moves pretty quickly into "pull out all the pennies." Unless I'm thinking in two categories instead of binary again? >>
If there's no logical pattern imposed by shape or colour, then I'd go for the two largest denomination coins for your first sort. The "halves" only have to be approximate - in some cases that would be very approximate.
<<For the actual counting if I don't need to roll the coins >>
If by roll the coins you mean putting them in a roll, then the usual reason for counting large quantities of coins is to pay them into a bank - and they need to be in rolls for that. British banks now use small transparent plastic bags which are much easier, but they still need to be filled with the correct amount.
<< I'm a fan of putting a fistful of coins in both hands and counting by twos, dropping one from each hand as I go. >>
If you're using a flat surface like a table top for the counting, all you have to do is slide the coins with one hand into the other hand held just below the level of edge of the table. Once you've got the correct number in your hand you just tip them from your hand into the bag.
July 24, 2014 at 15:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So when choosing what pull out first, consider:
- Ease of finding. Colour or size that you can easily distinguish from "not". Larger first (eg clothing), so you aren't moving larger things around to find the smaller things.
- Number in the pile. Mathematically, if they're equally distributed, pulling out half is best. (Shortest decision tree, fewer touches per item overall.) If there are significantly more of one type, do it first. (Leaves fewer to be touched in the next stage.)
- Value. Depositing the 5 pound notes on time is more important than a handful of pennies. Leaving kids' clothes mixed in the basket makes for a worse morning than leaving the adults' (assuming wrinkles don't matter).
Anything else?
Learning, I hope your surgery goes well. Working in a casino sounds a lot more challenging than it appears. It's one of those arts where those who do it well make it look effortless.
- Ease of finding. Colour or size that you can easily distinguish from "not". Larger first (eg clothing), so you aren't moving larger things around to find the smaller things.
- Number in the pile. Mathematically, if they're equally distributed, pulling out half is best. (Shortest decision tree, fewer touches per item overall.) If there are significantly more of one type, do it first. (Leaves fewer to be touched in the next stage.)
- Value. Depositing the 5 pound notes on time is more important than a handful of pennies. Leaving kids' clothes mixed in the basket makes for a worse morning than leaving the adults' (assuming wrinkles don't matter).
Anything else?
Learning, I hope your surgery goes well. Working in a casino sounds a lot more challenging than it appears. It's one of those arts where those who do it well make it look effortless.
July 24, 2014 at 15:12 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< are the gold coins also of higher value? If so, another benefit to doing them first is if you have to stop in the middle, the high value coins will be done. >>
Yes, that's correct. Or, as I do it with my own money, the low value "shrapnel" comes at the end and you can skip counting it altogether because it's basically worthless. Obviously you can't do that if it's someone else's money you're counting.
<< are the gold coins also of higher value? If so, another benefit to doing them first is if you have to stop in the middle, the high value coins will be done. >>
Yes, that's correct. Or, as I do it with my own money, the low value "shrapnel" comes at the end and you can skip counting it altogether because it's basically worthless. Obviously you can't do that if it's someone else's money you're counting.
July 24, 2014 at 15:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket:
One more thing for your list:
The halves have to be relevant to the purpose of your sort. For instance if you were counting coins in order to pay them in to the bank, there would be no point at all in sorting into a half called "Coins dated in 21st Century".
On the other hand if you were running a coin museum then date probably would be a relevant factor.
One more thing for your list:
The halves have to be relevant to the purpose of your sort. For instance if you were counting coins in order to pay them in to the bank, there would be no point at all in sorting into a half called "Coins dated in 21st Century".
On the other hand if you were running a coin museum then date probably would be a relevant factor.
July 24, 2014 at 15:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
As we're now at the limit of the number of posts allowed on one page, I'm closing this thread. You are welcome to start a new thread if you wish to continue the discussion.
July 24, 2014 at 15:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Yay!
Now that it's done and I'm looking back, I'm able to see patterns, both good and bad.
Clearing those papers from 2008 was more rewarding than working on current low-urgency projects. Many things are more rewarding than current low-urgency projects.
Even though in theory it doesn't matter what order I work a closed list in, FIFO, especially when FI means hiding at the bottom of the pile, works well for me. It's a type of randomizing.
Most items in the backlog took under five minutes. Many were there because it was easier than putting them in their proper home, and putting things there became a habit. Many were there because they needed tidying, scanning, or typing. The worst were parts of bigger organization projects, where I wanted to totally clean out and reorganize their homes. And the ones from a big project that I shouldn't start until I have information that's spread through my other two backlogs. (About 18 inches of paper, oldest paper is 2011. Definitely doable.)
I'll start a "five minutes" folder for things that can't be dealt with immediately. By keeping a folder, I can easily tell if it's getting out of hand. That's only for newly-arrived things, not for things I want to take out of a backlog.
Little and _often_ rocks for backlogs like this, usually. It broke down, though, when I hit something that would take time, on a day I expected a quick success. Then I was tempted to cheat, just so I could see progress. Sometimes I just moved it to my current "not today" pile, which eventually got declared a backlog. Other times, especially if I wanted to fix its home, I put it in my active pile, to represent fixing the home. (From the active pile, they aged to the not-today pile, to the next backlog.)
These cheats happened often enough that I can see a pattern, in hindsight, but not so often that I can't declare the Jan 2009 backlog done.
Next time, I'll put it in a folder on top of the backlog, and call that the bottom of the backlog until it's done. That loses the benefit of surprise, and might turn my "quick, satisfying session on the backlog" into "yet another session on that resisted project", but I think it's the best option. If the project will take more than a few sessions, I'll promote it to a project outside the backlog, and hibernate it unless there's a good reason to keep it active.
If the only reason I'm tempted to cheat is it's awkward to put away, I need to split the binder, or shuffle the shelves, or otherwise fix the cause. As in the other case, making a home for that paper becomes the next part of the backlog.
Papers best dealt with in a batch were another temptation to cheat. I sometimes moved them to the next-most-recent backlog, since at least they'd be closer to other similar papers, and out of the current project.
Next time, I'll have folders for papers best dealt with in a batch. These folders will still be part of the backlog. It's risky, though, since it's easy to say, "I should wait until I have a batch of these" instead of dealing with it, leaving those batches till the end. I think that's better, though, than taking them out of the backlog, or insisting I deal with them inefficiently.