Discussion Forum > The Worker Is Too Slow
Hi Christopher,
I love autofocus and the other Forster variants, but I discovered a while back that I can only do them on a prioritized list, otherwise the list is too long to cover adequately in a day. I also find that a prioritized list helps me "game the system." I love the variety of activities that the autofocuses have, but I know that whatever I draw from the list is something that is worthwhile to do at this time.
I do priorities in different ways, these days I start by making up a SMEMA list, randomize the three items, add more until I can't think of anything to add, then I go to my task list which is subdivided into three categories (based on Michael Linnenberger's work), start with the thighest prioritiy and randomize the list.
For this to work you do need to review and redo your priorities often, but once that work is done, it is smooth sailing
I love autofocus and the other Forster variants, but I discovered a while back that I can only do them on a prioritized list, otherwise the list is too long to cover adequately in a day. I also find that a prioritized list helps me "game the system." I love the variety of activities that the autofocuses have, but I know that whatever I draw from the list is something that is worthwhile to do at this time.
I do priorities in different ways, these days I start by making up a SMEMA list, randomize the three items, add more until I can't think of anything to add, then I go to my task list which is subdivided into three categories (based on Michael Linnenberger's work), start with the thighest prioritiy and randomize the list.
For this to work you do need to review and redo your priorities often, but once that work is done, it is smooth sailing
October 28, 2014 at 17:28 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
Christopher:
<< I tend to get bogged down by one or two tasks that tend to occupy me for hours at a time. These are, most of the time those very important projects or "current initiative" type of tasks. >>
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that you succeed in doing your very important tasks for hours at a time? It doesn't sound too much of a problem to me!
However if you want to allow a bit more opportunity for processing the other tasks then the solution is to to take more frequent breaks from the big tasks. Instead of getting bogged down on them for hours at a time, come back to them several times during the course of the day.
<< I tend to get bogged down by one or two tasks that tend to occupy me for hours at a time. These are, most of the time those very important projects or "current initiative" type of tasks. >>
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that you succeed in doing your very important tasks for hours at a time? It doesn't sound too much of a problem to me!
However if you want to allow a bit more opportunity for processing the other tasks then the solution is to to take more frequent breaks from the big tasks. Instead of getting bogged down on them for hours at a time, come back to them several times during the course of the day.
October 28, 2014 at 19:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
vegheadjones:
Yeah, but my problem doesn't seem to be the lenght of the list. As I wrote, my list is reasonable short.
If I am not mistaken, Michael Linnenberger's Wordaynow doesn't use prioritization at all, but sorts the list by urgency, doesn't it?
With GTD I learned that priority is best dealt on the 10,000 ft level. Linnenberger has a goals system attached to his system to accomodate for that, I guess. Can you comment on that?
Of course I do have other planning material than only my Autofocus list. They report back to my brain and this in turn influences "stands out".
Mark:
Thanks for your reply, appreciate it!
I had good success with GTD and DIT, but AF gives as a bonus this relaxing feel and is also a lot of fun the way you plow throught the list. I do use AF because it works, but mainly because of that special feel, for the fun of it. It adds to my quality of life if I may say so.
Yeah, but my problem doesn't seem to be the lenght of the list. As I wrote, my list is reasonable short.
If I am not mistaken, Michael Linnenberger's Wordaynow doesn't use prioritization at all, but sorts the list by urgency, doesn't it?
With GTD I learned that priority is best dealt on the 10,000 ft level. Linnenberger has a goals system attached to his system to accomodate for that, I guess. Can you comment on that?
Of course I do have other planning material than only my Autofocus list. They report back to my brain and this in turn influences "stands out".
Mark:
Thanks for your reply, appreciate it!
I had good success with GTD and DIT, but AF gives as a bonus this relaxing feel and is also a lot of fun the way you plow throught the list. I do use AF because it works, but mainly because of that special feel, for the fun of it. It adds to my quality of life if I may say so.
October 29, 2014 at 21:56 |
Christopher
Christopher
If you're getting the important things done, maybe once through AF each day is enough? Or declare a few blocks a week for AF?
Yes, Linnenberger uses urgency, not priority. He makes a good case for it. I don't remember if he discusses planning, so you don't relax all week, then come in on the weekend for 5 projects all due Monday.
He also limits the number of projects on each stage of the conveyor belt. Critical Now is things you'd stay late for, no more than 3 items. Opportunity Now is things you'd like to start on, no more than 20. Over the Horizon is everything else, can be very long, and tickler lists come into play. It sounded promising, but broke down because very few things in my life have firm deadlines. Most things, I could drop and no one but me would notice -- until I get diabetes, or the closets overflow with too-small clothes, or I curl up with no interests.
Yes, Linnenberger uses urgency, not priority. He makes a good case for it. I don't remember if he discusses planning, so you don't relax all week, then come in on the weekend for 5 projects all due Monday.
He also limits the number of projects on each stage of the conveyor belt. Critical Now is things you'd stay late for, no more than 3 items. Opportunity Now is things you'd like to start on, no more than 20. Over the Horizon is everything else, can be very long, and tickler lists come into play. It sounded promising, but broke down because very few things in my life have firm deadlines. Most things, I could drop and no one but me would notice -- until I get diabetes, or the closets overflow with too-small clothes, or I curl up with no interests.
October 31, 2014 at 14:36 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Christopher,
Interesting questions. I agree with your differentiating between urgency and priority and agree that 1) Linnenberger focuses on urgency and 2) Projects (10,000 ft view) should drive priority. I have found the key to be to 1) identify and prioritize projects and then create next actions from those projects. Those next actions should have a sense of intrinsic urgency since they are your high priority projects. They go in Outlook using the Linnenberger urgency/priority framework, but also categorized by project. I then treat them with the same sense of urgency as the extrinsic tasks. The ones that are top priority make up my action list, everything else remains in wait.
I also timebox, after I select my short set of items I randomize them, and work for only five minutes on the randomly selected one. When I land on that task again, I work 10 minutes, etc. If one of the tasks is part of a project and complete it, I go to my outlook list by category and select the next action to work on or I make up the next actions on the spot.
What do you think?
Interesting questions. I agree with your differentiating between urgency and priority and agree that 1) Linnenberger focuses on urgency and 2) Projects (10,000 ft view) should drive priority. I have found the key to be to 1) identify and prioritize projects and then create next actions from those projects. Those next actions should have a sense of intrinsic urgency since they are your high priority projects. They go in Outlook using the Linnenberger urgency/priority framework, but also categorized by project. I then treat them with the same sense of urgency as the extrinsic tasks. The ones that are top priority make up my action list, everything else remains in wait.
I also timebox, after I select my short set of items I randomize them, and work for only five minutes on the randomly selected one. When I land on that task again, I work 10 minutes, etc. If one of the tasks is part of a project and complete it, I go to my outlook list by category and select the next action to work on or I make up the next actions on the spot.
What do you think?
November 5, 2014 at 15:58 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
From: Devil's Advocate
To: The overcommitted
Subj: Life
"“...[W]e should be mucking about all the time, because mucking about is enjoying life for its own sake, now, and not in preparation for an imaginary future. It's obvious that the mirth-filled man, the cheerful soul, the childish adult is the one who has least to fear from life.”
― Tom Hodgkinson, The Freedom Manifesto"
To: The overcommitted
Subj: Life
"“...[W]e should be mucking about all the time, because mucking about is enjoying life for its own sake, now, and not in preparation for an imaginary future. It's obvious that the mirth-filled man, the cheerful soul, the childish adult is the one who has least to fear from life.”
― Tom Hodgkinson, The Freedom Manifesto"
November 11, 2014 at 18:58 |
michael
michael
michael:
<< mucking about is enjoying life for its own sake, now, and not in preparation for an imaginary future >>
So how would that relate to the imaginary future of, say, being able to play the violin, speak a foreign language, be fit enough to walk a long trail, or any other achievement requiring a period of long, consistent, effort?
<< mucking about is enjoying life for its own sake, now, and not in preparation for an imaginary future >>
So how would that relate to the imaginary future of, say, being able to play the violin, speak a foreign language, be fit enough to walk a long trail, or any other achievement requiring a period of long, consistent, effort?
November 11, 2014 at 19:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark: this is tricky. The future can become overly important - Buddhism often seems to warn about living for the future, for example. A "living in the moment" philosophy is sometimes advocated. Personally I propose a 50/50 approach: half one's attention on today's pleasures, half on the future.
November 11, 2014 at 19:58 |
michael
michael
Michael
<<Personally I propose a 50/50 approach: half one's attention on today's pleasures, half on the future.>>
How would that relate to a life largely devoted to caring for an invalid wife? I suspect that the best formula for a fulfilling life would be more like: "Always living in accordance with the most life-giving aspects of one's being". This would take some spelling out, but it seems to me to be a better starting point.
<<Personally I propose a 50/50 approach: half one's attention on today's pleasures, half on the future.>>
How would that relate to a life largely devoted to caring for an invalid wife? I suspect that the best formula for a fulfilling life would be more like: "Always living in accordance with the most life-giving aspects of one's being". This would take some spelling out, but it seems to me to be a better starting point.
November 12, 2014 at 6:34 |
Jim
Jim
Jim: A good question, to which I have no good answer. I am interested though in the idea that one remedy for self-centered egoic wanting is service to others. This I imagine could be transcendent in some way. I believe there is a line in the movie Gosford Park along the lines of "I am the perfect servant as I anticipate everyone's needs and have none of my own". A rather powerful counter-cultural message!
November 12, 2014 at 11:57 |
michael
michael
michael:
<< I am interested though in the idea that one remedy for self-centered egoic wanting is service to others.>>
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/11/11/dostoyevsky-dream/
<< I am interested though in the idea that one remedy for self-centered egoic wanting is service to others.>>
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/11/11/dostoyevsky-dream/
November 12, 2014 at 21:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark: Thanks. Interesting ideas.
So much "goal-getting" advice is about acquiring money, status, fame, wealth...Very little attention goes on aspects we prefer not to look at, especially (say) coping with and resilience to failure, disappointment, guilt, shame, regret...
So much "goal-getting" advice is about acquiring money, status, fame, wealth...Very little attention goes on aspects we prefer not to look at, especially (say) coping with and resilience to failure, disappointment, guilt, shame, regret...
November 13, 2014 at 17:16 |
michael
michael
PS Tolstoy had, for example, a goal of visiting a brothel only twice a month!
http://www.tolstoytherapy.com/2012/07/tolstoys-rules-and-perfectionism.html
http://www.tolstoytherapy.com/2012/07/tolstoys-rules-and-perfectionism.html
November 13, 2014 at 17:22 |
michael
michael
michael:
Completely off the subject, did you know that Dostoyevsky's three most famous novels are examples of the three different types of detective novels?
The Brothers Karamazov is the Agatha Christie type in which the murderer is unknown until the end of the book.
Crime and Punishment is the Colombo type in which the detective knows who the murderer is but has to prove it.
The Idiot is is the type in which we see all the events leading up to a murder, which takes place at the end of the book.
Completely off the subject, did you know that Dostoyevsky's three most famous novels are examples of the three different types of detective novels?
The Brothers Karamazov is the Agatha Christie type in which the murderer is unknown until the end of the book.
Crime and Punishment is the Colombo type in which the detective knows who the murderer is but has to prove it.
The Idiot is is the type in which we see all the events leading up to a murder, which takes place at the end of the book.
November 14, 2014 at 11:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The Buddhists I follow (as in read online and often learn from, rather than follow as infallible teachers) have no problem with planning for the future. The Buddhists who wrote books or built schools also planned and built well.
Near as I can tell, they are in the moment when asking what they want to achieve and how they can achieve it. They are in the moment while they are planning. They are in the moment when they are looking for problems and solutions. And when it comes time to chop wood and carry water[1], that is what they do.
It's not that there aren't thoughts related to the moment. Even experienced meditators rarely stay focused for more than a few breaths. It's that they come back to the moment.
++++
""Worry does not empty tomorrow of its sorrow. It empties today of its strength." (Too many attributions to verify.)
++++
Ecclesiastes 3 says, "To everything there is a season..."
+++
I've recently become intrigued with Jewish rituals. They've had 3000 years, and countless cultures, to come up with a wide variety. Many of the rituals mark beginning and ending. 14 blessings (thank-yous or acknowledgements, depending on the teacher) to begin each day, and several more at the end. A blessing before and after each meal. A blessing before and after studying religious texts.
Most of us are familiar with the lighting of two candles at the beginning of Shabbat, but there's also a ritual at the end of Shabbat, called Havdalah, with many of the same physical objects, but they have different meanings. The first prepares participants to leave the world of work so they can focus on God and relaxation. The second (this is my own interpretation) puts in bookmarks (often some wine is left in anticipation of the next Sabbath), closes the books, and prepares participants for the work week.
(Aside: Despite being agnostic, "Blessed art Thou Oh Lord who..." focuses me more than "It's amazing and wonderful that..." or "I'm lucky / grateful / blessed that...")
I know the early Christians had good reasons to drop most of the Jewish rituals and mitzvohs, but I think they lost something valuable when they did, then the Protestents lost even more. Maybe next time I'm at the library I'll pick up the Catholic Catechism, or the Orthodox equivalent.
[1]
"Before Enlightenment: chop wood carry water.
After Enlightenment: chop wood carry water."
Near as I can tell, they are in the moment when asking what they want to achieve and how they can achieve it. They are in the moment while they are planning. They are in the moment when they are looking for problems and solutions. And when it comes time to chop wood and carry water[1], that is what they do.
It's not that there aren't thoughts related to the moment. Even experienced meditators rarely stay focused for more than a few breaths. It's that they come back to the moment.
++++
""Worry does not empty tomorrow of its sorrow. It empties today of its strength." (Too many attributions to verify.)
++++
Ecclesiastes 3 says, "To everything there is a season..."
+++
I've recently become intrigued with Jewish rituals. They've had 3000 years, and countless cultures, to come up with a wide variety. Many of the rituals mark beginning and ending. 14 blessings (thank-yous or acknowledgements, depending on the teacher) to begin each day, and several more at the end. A blessing before and after each meal. A blessing before and after studying religious texts.
Most of us are familiar with the lighting of two candles at the beginning of Shabbat, but there's also a ritual at the end of Shabbat, called Havdalah, with many of the same physical objects, but they have different meanings. The first prepares participants to leave the world of work so they can focus on God and relaxation. The second (this is my own interpretation) puts in bookmarks (often some wine is left in anticipation of the next Sabbath), closes the books, and prepares participants for the work week.
(Aside: Despite being agnostic, "Blessed art Thou Oh Lord who..." focuses me more than "It's amazing and wonderful that..." or "I'm lucky / grateful / blessed that...")
I know the early Christians had good reasons to drop most of the Jewish rituals and mitzvohs, but I think they lost something valuable when they did, then the Protestents lost even more. Maybe next time I'm at the library I'll pick up the Catholic Catechism, or the Orthodox equivalent.
[1]
"Before Enlightenment: chop wood carry water.
After Enlightenment: chop wood carry water."
November 14, 2014 at 16:50 |
Cricket
Cricket
"We should avoid confusing living for the moment with living in the moment."
Discuss.
Discuss.
November 15, 2014 at 0:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Great discussion, raises very interesting points.
I think that 'living IN the moment' is a technique that enhances whatever you're doing at the time, pleasant or unpleasant, mundane or exciting.
'Living in the moment' can make the unbearable bearable if you actively take notice of what you're doing in the moment. For me, it's a mental technique that makes it easier to deal with external circumstances not being as I'd like, and even if I haven't achieved what I wanted to achieve on a particular day, if I've managed to live in the moment for some or all of the time, I don't see it as a wasted day - living in the moment has been an achievement in itself, and made the day more fun. It also enhances pleasant activities.
Whereas my take on 'living FOR the moment' (if I understand it correctly) is that by seeking instant gratification, and maybe failing to plan ahead, you might end up with less fulfillment than if you delay gratification.
I think that 'living IN the moment' is a technique that enhances whatever you're doing at the time, pleasant or unpleasant, mundane or exciting.
'Living in the moment' can make the unbearable bearable if you actively take notice of what you're doing in the moment. For me, it's a mental technique that makes it easier to deal with external circumstances not being as I'd like, and even if I haven't achieved what I wanted to achieve on a particular day, if I've managed to live in the moment for some or all of the time, I don't see it as a wasted day - living in the moment has been an achievement in itself, and made the day more fun. It also enhances pleasant activities.
Whereas my take on 'living FOR the moment' (if I understand it correctly) is that by seeking instant gratification, and maybe failing to plan ahead, you might end up with less fulfillment than if you delay gratification.
November 17, 2014 at 11:58 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
I think "getting in to the moment" requires definition, and probably a process. It is often assumed to be "being still" or "not thinking (much)" but I believe it requires an active inquiry, such as for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing
Getting in to the moment takes some time! It has layers, subtleties and nuances - but can yield more awareness, It brings the unconscious to consciousness. It may be related to the concept of fractal consciousness.
Getting in to the moment takes some time! It has layers, subtleties and nuances - but can yield more awareness, It brings the unconscious to consciousness. It may be related to the concept of fractal consciousness.
November 17, 2014 at 12:36 |
michael
michael
Living in the moment has positive connotations. You're there. You're enjoying your kids' show without comparing your kid to the other kids, or wishing you were back at work. I had real problems with this years ago when the kids were very small and I was too-involved with a role-playing group. The characters kept intruding.
Also, living in the moment acknowledges that this moment is fleeting. A fraction of a second later, you're in a new moment. It accepts that change happens. Enjoy this moment, appreciate that it will never come again. Don't try to hold back change.
Buddhists describe two types of pain. The first is unavoidable. (Hitting finger with hammer. Yeah, the nerves send messages so you repair the damage if possible and don't do it again. It hurts. It's distracting. Maybe I should ask the kids to let me concentrate for a bit, or put down the hammer and play with them.) The second is created by us. (Woe is me. My finger hurts so much. I can't even swing a hammer properly. It's not fair. Now I won't be able to work tomorrow. Oh, this hurts so much. I need to deaden the pain.) Buddhists aren't against pain killers for physical injury, or anti-depressants for depression, but are less likely to need them.
Living for the moment usually has negative connotations. What I want to do now is more important than the future. Deadening current pain is more important than the damage that drinking might do.
Also, living in the moment acknowledges that this moment is fleeting. A fraction of a second later, you're in a new moment. It accepts that change happens. Enjoy this moment, appreciate that it will never come again. Don't try to hold back change.
Buddhists describe two types of pain. The first is unavoidable. (Hitting finger with hammer. Yeah, the nerves send messages so you repair the damage if possible and don't do it again. It hurts. It's distracting. Maybe I should ask the kids to let me concentrate for a bit, or put down the hammer and play with them.) The second is created by us. (Woe is me. My finger hurts so much. I can't even swing a hammer properly. It's not fair. Now I won't be able to work tomorrow. Oh, this hurts so much. I need to deaden the pain.) Buddhists aren't against pain killers for physical injury, or anti-depressants for depression, but are less likely to need them.
Living for the moment usually has negative connotations. What I want to do now is more important than the future. Deadening current pain is more important than the damage that drinking might do.
November 17, 2014 at 19:52 |
Cricket
Cricket
@vegheadjones:
I think you could save yourself all the work with "all the rest remains in wait". Just define the projects and tasks for the active lists.
What is your panning* horizon? If for example you do your prioritization (the process where you divide your projects between "active" and "wait") once per week, the time frame of one week should be taken into consideration automatically. You do not have a projects list but a "projects this week" list. Therefore it is understood that you may have other projects elsewhere, they just don't apply to this week.
The "catch all" lists of GTD and Autofocus use their "completeness feature" for a) peace of mind which is needed because they are time frame agnostic, and b) to reveal priorities and goals through the famous bottom-up approach. Both these do not apply to your system, as you do top-down project creation. If I understood you right.
So, I guess your system is more complex than needed.
Also categorization per project? This influences how you can denote a task. If your task is "design ideas" and your project is already "website" you are clear as long as you see the category. Otherwise you have to somehow make clear you mean the design ideas for the website and not those for the living room renovation project or so. When GTD had it's heyday in the "geek" communities some of them went crazy with this with nested contexts and what not.
Other than that I do not know why you would want to dublicate your projects list by having it as categories again. Seems to be waisted effort.
----
*
"planning" I meant planning!! But I keep this typo for reasons of philosophical elevation.
I think you could save yourself all the work with "all the rest remains in wait". Just define the projects and tasks for the active lists.
What is your panning* horizon? If for example you do your prioritization (the process where you divide your projects between "active" and "wait") once per week, the time frame of one week should be taken into consideration automatically. You do not have a projects list but a "projects this week" list. Therefore it is understood that you may have other projects elsewhere, they just don't apply to this week.
The "catch all" lists of GTD and Autofocus use their "completeness feature" for a) peace of mind which is needed because they are time frame agnostic, and b) to reveal priorities and goals through the famous bottom-up approach. Both these do not apply to your system, as you do top-down project creation. If I understood you right.
So, I guess your system is more complex than needed.
Also categorization per project? This influences how you can denote a task. If your task is "design ideas" and your project is already "website" you are clear as long as you see the category. Otherwise you have to somehow make clear you mean the design ideas for the website and not those for the living room renovation project or so. When GTD had it's heyday in the "geek" communities some of them went crazy with this with nested contexts and what not.
Other than that I do not know why you would want to dublicate your projects list by having it as categories again. Seems to be waisted effort.
----
*
"planning" I meant planning!! But I keep this typo for reasons of philosophical elevation.
November 19, 2014 at 9:36 |
Christopher
Christopher
Recent post from another blog on living in the moment
http://thinksimplenow.com/happiness/find-happiness/
http://thinksimplenow.com/happiness/find-happiness/
November 22, 2014 at 21:10 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Chris nand all,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I wrote up a pretty decent response last week thought it posted, but guess not. WIll try again.
Chris, I like your typo, I thought you meant I go through my tasks "panning" for the gold ones, which made sense to me.
I think I was not clear with the purpose of my last post, the one you responded to. In that post I focused on projects not tasks. I did this because I am trying to realign my way of working to be more project focused. I come from a strong GTD background which still greatly informs how I approach work and I tend to be very action oriented. I think this is good overall, projects are just a set of actions so if I do actions related to projects I am doing projects, right?
While this works well in keeping all my plates spinning, I would like to make sure that projects and their associated actions get prioritized, such that when I finish an action of a particular project, I can go to the other associated actions on that project easily, hence the categorization of actions by project.
While I am still tweaking my system, it is working well. It may seem like a lot of overhead in writing but in practice it is not. Let me try to summarize it in a way that may not seem overly busy.
1. Use an excel sheet to keep track of what you are working on today. I made a template with macros that make it easy for me to populate it.
2. Populate it throughout the day, use it as your driver for what to do next. I have it set so that the first 25 things I populate it with go on a sheet, then anything above that goes on another sheet. This gives it the closed list feeling we love.
3. Start off the population with three tasks from the top of your head. Usually one of those tasks is a routine sheet I use to determine what else populates the sheet. One of the three is usually a deadline or stressful project, and the other comes from a quick mind dump. This is the SMEMA part of the process.
4. Randomly select one (my excel sheet has a built in random generator) and work on that task. I timebox so that I only work 5 minutes on one task, then randomize again, etc.
5. If I hit the "routine" task I follow my daily routine which in part involves populating the remaining 22 items. The order I populate them is as follows:
a. Calendar events I need to prepare for
b. Linnenberger critical now (Outlook have a due date of today, high proprity)
c. Tasks or projects that have deadlines (I keep them in outlook but do not use due date to signify a deadline instead I use a user created field called (wait for it...) "Deadline"
d. Projects I should be working on. These come from a project list that I am now keeping in outlook ina separate task folder
e. . Linnenberger Opportunity Now (Outlook due date today, normal priority)
This gets me to the 25 for the day.
6) I still continue to work on the three selected items from 3. above until one is done or something becomes more pressing. If somethingbecomes more pressing that goes in the three and one of the three comes off (usually the "routine" one). When I can I put the routine one back in.
7) When I land on a project (from 3 or 5d above) I go to my project view in outlook which has my tasks categorized by project, this way I know all the things I can do on that project now.
8) I collect all notes from meetings etc on 3X5 index cards, to be entered into outlook during my routine period when that comes up randomly.
9) During the routine period all emails that are actions get moved into my task list with the subject indicating the action and the category indicating the associated project if there is one. All items get a due date (usually not today), a priority (usually normal unless it is something I am waiting on (then low) or it is a Critical Now (Linnenberger term) which is high. If i=I plan on getting it doen todeay it also goes on my today spreadsheet.
10) During the routine period I go though all tasks with todays due date, make sure they are clearly defined and if they are not one of the 25 I set in 5. above or soemthing that must get done today it gets a due date of another day. I like to move due dates if I am comfortable to do so by one full week.
10 above means that I am reviewing all of my tasks in batches rather than everything on a daily or weekly basis.
11) I am trying to review my projects and associated actions once a week, that activity of course becomes one of the 325 for the day.
I think that is the basic structure of my system. Again I dont find it onerous, though it is rigorous and perhaps overkill for some. It isdoing a better job of keeping me on top of everything, doing the things that need to get done and allowing project focused activities. If you are interested, let me know of any questions, and please feel free to question my sanity! :)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I wrote up a pretty decent response last week thought it posted, but guess not. WIll try again.
Chris, I like your typo, I thought you meant I go through my tasks "panning" for the gold ones, which made sense to me.
I think I was not clear with the purpose of my last post, the one you responded to. In that post I focused on projects not tasks. I did this because I am trying to realign my way of working to be more project focused. I come from a strong GTD background which still greatly informs how I approach work and I tend to be very action oriented. I think this is good overall, projects are just a set of actions so if I do actions related to projects I am doing projects, right?
While this works well in keeping all my plates spinning, I would like to make sure that projects and their associated actions get prioritized, such that when I finish an action of a particular project, I can go to the other associated actions on that project easily, hence the categorization of actions by project.
While I am still tweaking my system, it is working well. It may seem like a lot of overhead in writing but in practice it is not. Let me try to summarize it in a way that may not seem overly busy.
1. Use an excel sheet to keep track of what you are working on today. I made a template with macros that make it easy for me to populate it.
2. Populate it throughout the day, use it as your driver for what to do next. I have it set so that the first 25 things I populate it with go on a sheet, then anything above that goes on another sheet. This gives it the closed list feeling we love.
3. Start off the population with three tasks from the top of your head. Usually one of those tasks is a routine sheet I use to determine what else populates the sheet. One of the three is usually a deadline or stressful project, and the other comes from a quick mind dump. This is the SMEMA part of the process.
4. Randomly select one (my excel sheet has a built in random generator) and work on that task. I timebox so that I only work 5 minutes on one task, then randomize again, etc.
5. If I hit the "routine" task I follow my daily routine which in part involves populating the remaining 22 items. The order I populate them is as follows:
a. Calendar events I need to prepare for
b. Linnenberger critical now (Outlook have a due date of today, high proprity)
c. Tasks or projects that have deadlines (I keep them in outlook but do not use due date to signify a deadline instead I use a user created field called (wait for it...) "Deadline"
d. Projects I should be working on. These come from a project list that I am now keeping in outlook ina separate task folder
e. . Linnenberger Opportunity Now (Outlook due date today, normal priority)
This gets me to the 25 for the day.
6) I still continue to work on the three selected items from 3. above until one is done or something becomes more pressing. If somethingbecomes more pressing that goes in the three and one of the three comes off (usually the "routine" one). When I can I put the routine one back in.
7) When I land on a project (from 3 or 5d above) I go to my project view in outlook which has my tasks categorized by project, this way I know all the things I can do on that project now.
8) I collect all notes from meetings etc on 3X5 index cards, to be entered into outlook during my routine period when that comes up randomly.
9) During the routine period all emails that are actions get moved into my task list with the subject indicating the action and the category indicating the associated project if there is one. All items get a due date (usually not today), a priority (usually normal unless it is something I am waiting on (then low) or it is a Critical Now (Linnenberger term) which is high. If i=I plan on getting it doen todeay it also goes on my today spreadsheet.
10) During the routine period I go though all tasks with todays due date, make sure they are clearly defined and if they are not one of the 25 I set in 5. above or soemthing that must get done today it gets a due date of another day. I like to move due dates if I am comfortable to do so by one full week.
10 above means that I am reviewing all of my tasks in batches rather than everything on a daily or weekly basis.
11) I am trying to review my projects and associated actions once a week, that activity of course becomes one of the 325 for the day.
I think that is the basic structure of my system. Again I dont find it onerous, though it is rigorous and perhaps overkill for some. It isdoing a better job of keeping me on top of everything, doing the things that need to get done and allowing project focused activities. If you are interested, let me know of any questions, and please feel free to question my sanity! :)
November 30, 2014 at 21:03 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
I can see that this is important for the system to function perfectly. For example if I add "due on today" tasks from the calendar in the morning. I want to see them twice or trice during the day to catch them soon enough (and do them.)
I tend to get bogged down by one or two tasks that tend to occupy me for hours at a time. These are, most of the time those very important projects or "current initiative" type of tasks. I am productive. My lists are reasonable short. I get the most important things done on time.
But often times the Autofocus list seems to be something "in second row" lingering on the backburner and that special, relaxing "I did Autofocus today" feeling leaves me and anxiousness creeps in.
What can I do to better get 4-5 times trough the list per day?
What could be the root cause for my snailish list traversal?