Discussion Forum > How reducing resistance for individual tasks causes WIP and misalignment to increase (part 2)
When there is a lot of chaos in the environment, the dynamics begin to change.
More and more stuff starts arriving on the list. For many items, it's not clear how important it really is, or whether it needs to be done at all. It needs some time and percolation for the real priorities to begin to emerge.
So one can still process these the same way. Dot the things that stand out. Work on them as long as you want. See what gets traction, drop what doesn't, etc.
It seems to me, the key here is understanding the things that inform your intuition in making the decision to stop working on something, and move to something else. For me, it usually one of these:
(1) I feel like I've moved it forward "enough" and just want a break.
(2) I have reached an obstacle I don't know how to overcome.
(3) I feel pressure from other tasks that need more attention than the current task.
Let's address each in turn.
(1) Need a break. This isn't really a problem when you have a manageable workload. It's easy to pick up that task again later, when it stands out again. It becomes more of a problem when you can't cycle through the list enough -- maybe you won't come back to this task for a long time. When you finally do, it seems stale, or late, or suddenly urgent - and that can create stress and reactivity, which tend to generate resistance. All these factors prevent these tasks from standing out -- meaning, they hang around as unfinished WIP. WIP increases even more. However, I don't think these kinds of tasks are the root cause of the longer and longer lists. It's the other two causes of stopping that can be more problematic.
(2) Obstacles. This is a little more complicated. When I have a manageable workload, I will repeatedly see this task, and be reminded (at least subconsciously) of the obstacle that needs to be overcome. My subconscious mind will keep working away at it. At some point, a solution will appear, and the task will stand out. Or, the time pressure starts to increase and cause the task to stand out.
But when I have a chaotic workload, and lots of new incoming stuff to deal with, it's different. I don't cycle through the list as often, and don't expose my subconscious mind to this task as often. So the solutions don't appear so easily. Further, when the time pressure starts, this only creates stress and resistance to the task, and PREVENTS it from standing out. At the same time, there are all these new interesting tasks arriving on my list! THOSE ones DO stand out -- thus causing WIP to increase. This makes cycling through the list take even longer, and creates more misalignments between the various projects already in WIP.
(3) Pressure from other tasks. This is also complicated. When I have a manageable workload, it's easy, I just stop my current task, and go scanning for whatever else is bothering me. I take care of that, then start scanning again. Soon I will come back to the first task and keep it moving forward. I easily find the way to balance all these pressures.
But when I have a chaotic workload, the pressure from other tasks is less tangible, it's more a general anxiety that there are other things that need attention but it's not clear what. This makes it harder to focus on ANY task for very long. This means I am stopping and starting at an increased rate. This naturally causes WIP to increase. As the WIP increases, it's much harder to keep things focused and aligned. And that only causes the reactivity to accelerate, and I lose touch with my intuition. The list also gets longer, and I can't cycle through it as much.
(2) and (3) make it difficult to SELECT the right things, but also make it difficult to DELETE the right things. Not deleting is not simply the result of wanting to hold onto things. It's more a fear of dropping something important, when you haven't had enough exposure to something to allow its real importance to emerge.
When all these factors become so dominant that you can't cycle through the list frequently enough, WIP goes through the roof, misalignment is harder and harder to resolve, and the overall process starts to become less and less effective. This is when I feel the need to go off-list to regain focus -- or at least, limit myself to the last page or two of the list, until I can re-establish focus.
More and more stuff starts arriving on the list. For many items, it's not clear how important it really is, or whether it needs to be done at all. It needs some time and percolation for the real priorities to begin to emerge.
So one can still process these the same way. Dot the things that stand out. Work on them as long as you want. See what gets traction, drop what doesn't, etc.
It seems to me, the key here is understanding the things that inform your intuition in making the decision to stop working on something, and move to something else. For me, it usually one of these:
(1) I feel like I've moved it forward "enough" and just want a break.
(2) I have reached an obstacle I don't know how to overcome.
(3) I feel pressure from other tasks that need more attention than the current task.
Let's address each in turn.
(1) Need a break. This isn't really a problem when you have a manageable workload. It's easy to pick up that task again later, when it stands out again. It becomes more of a problem when you can't cycle through the list enough -- maybe you won't come back to this task for a long time. When you finally do, it seems stale, or late, or suddenly urgent - and that can create stress and reactivity, which tend to generate resistance. All these factors prevent these tasks from standing out -- meaning, they hang around as unfinished WIP. WIP increases even more. However, I don't think these kinds of tasks are the root cause of the longer and longer lists. It's the other two causes of stopping that can be more problematic.
(2) Obstacles. This is a little more complicated. When I have a manageable workload, I will repeatedly see this task, and be reminded (at least subconsciously) of the obstacle that needs to be overcome. My subconscious mind will keep working away at it. At some point, a solution will appear, and the task will stand out. Or, the time pressure starts to increase and cause the task to stand out.
But when I have a chaotic workload, and lots of new incoming stuff to deal with, it's different. I don't cycle through the list as often, and don't expose my subconscious mind to this task as often. So the solutions don't appear so easily. Further, when the time pressure starts, this only creates stress and resistance to the task, and PREVENTS it from standing out. At the same time, there are all these new interesting tasks arriving on my list! THOSE ones DO stand out -- thus causing WIP to increase. This makes cycling through the list take even longer, and creates more misalignments between the various projects already in WIP.
(3) Pressure from other tasks. This is also complicated. When I have a manageable workload, it's easy, I just stop my current task, and go scanning for whatever else is bothering me. I take care of that, then start scanning again. Soon I will come back to the first task and keep it moving forward. I easily find the way to balance all these pressures.
But when I have a chaotic workload, the pressure from other tasks is less tangible, it's more a general anxiety that there are other things that need attention but it's not clear what. This makes it harder to focus on ANY task for very long. This means I am stopping and starting at an increased rate. This naturally causes WIP to increase. As the WIP increases, it's much harder to keep things focused and aligned. And that only causes the reactivity to accelerate, and I lose touch with my intuition. The list also gets longer, and I can't cycle through it as much.
(2) and (3) make it difficult to SELECT the right things, but also make it difficult to DELETE the right things. Not deleting is not simply the result of wanting to hold onto things. It's more a fear of dropping something important, when you haven't had enough exposure to something to allow its real importance to emerge.
When all these factors become so dominant that you can't cycle through the list frequently enough, WIP goes through the roof, misalignment is harder and harder to resolve, and the overall process starts to become less and less effective. This is when I feel the need to go off-list to regain focus -- or at least, limit myself to the last page or two of the list, until I can re-establish focus.
November 6, 2018 at 18:41 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It occurs to me that one reason I liked FVP and FFVP so much is because they do so well in these chaotic environments, processing all that stuff at the end of the list. But I found that I developed a *habit* of staying near the end of the list, even when the chaos subsided into a period of calm and recovery after the storm. As a result, I would almost never return to the first part of the list, and would stay in a state of continual reactivity, even when the environment was calm.
Hmm, it also occurs to me that there is a correlation here between the Cynefin quadrants (chaotic, complex, complicated, and simple) and these two modes. Long-list methods like Simple Scanning and AF1 operate really well in simple, complicated, and many complex situations. But they can be overwhelmed as the complexity moves closer to chaos. Methods like FVP are very effective in the chaos but tend to keep one's focus there even when the chaos has subsided.
Not sure what to do with these observations... but thought I'd record them here.
Hmm, it also occurs to me that there is a correlation here between the Cynefin quadrants (chaotic, complex, complicated, and simple) and these two modes. Long-list methods like Simple Scanning and AF1 operate really well in simple, complicated, and many complex situations. But they can be overwhelmed as the complexity moves closer to chaos. Methods like FVP are very effective in the chaos but tend to keep one's focus there even when the chaos has subsided.
Not sure what to do with these observations... but thought I'd record them here.
November 6, 2018 at 19:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim
Re. your comment about drawing a line under things and then listing the urgent stuff that needs your attention - surely this is a form of dismissal. You're not going to deal with the other stuff now but in the future, near or far, you may decide to look at it actively.
This is a very interesting thread. I know Mark's thinking seems to be moving away from dismissal but I can't help thinking that the AF1 method could be very useful if you view its dismissal rule as a way to get currently irrelevant stuff off your mind so you can focus on more pressing matters. Not so much as a method to get rid of stuff you will never do but a method to clear the decks for now.
Re. your comment about drawing a line under things and then listing the urgent stuff that needs your attention - surely this is a form of dismissal. You're not going to deal with the other stuff now but in the future, near or far, you may decide to look at it actively.
This is a very interesting thread. I know Mark's thinking seems to be moving away from dismissal but I can't help thinking that the AF1 method could be very useful if you view its dismissal rule as a way to get currently irrelevant stuff off your mind so you can focus on more pressing matters. Not so much as a method to get rid of stuff you will never do but a method to clear the decks for now.
November 6, 2018 at 20:32 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
I would add a #4 to your list Seraphim, which may not apply to you but often applies to me:
4) Fear of completion,
I've realized I often used "Little and Often" as an excuse not to finish something, even if I am, say, 95% done. I may be worried how the work will be received, or about what the next step might be, or something else. As you can imagine it does lead to much WIP.
Lately I have been trying the below, which seems to be helping:
1) Stick to one long list on paper, do simple scanning.
2) Be very clear in what I write, write it with a clear completion point in mind. No more "Do project X." at the very least i will write "Do all existing tasks in Project X."
3) The most heretical thing I have been doing is, no more crossing out and rewriting if something is not completed. I erase the dot, and leave it where it is until I can cross it off.
The last step seems to help a lot in keeping me focused on WIP.
4) Fear of completion,
I've realized I often used "Little and Often" as an excuse not to finish something, even if I am, say, 95% done. I may be worried how the work will be received, or about what the next step might be, or something else. As you can imagine it does lead to much WIP.
Lately I have been trying the below, which seems to be helping:
1) Stick to one long list on paper, do simple scanning.
2) Be very clear in what I write, write it with a clear completion point in mind. No more "Do project X." at the very least i will write "Do all existing tasks in Project X."
3) The most heretical thing I have been doing is, no more crossing out and rewriting if something is not completed. I erase the dot, and leave it where it is until I can cross it off.
The last step seems to help a lot in keeping me focused on WIP.
November 6, 2018 at 22:02 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
So if I understand things correctly the problem could be summed up as:
"When I get more work than I can possibly do, I find it impossible to get it all done."
I wonder what the answer to that could be? Beats me.
"When I get more work than I can possibly do, I find it impossible to get it all done."
I wonder what the answer to that could be? Beats me.
November 7, 2018 at 2:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think it would be more accurate to summarize as follows:
When I get more work than I can possibly do, Long List systems can still process it very effectively. The important work gets done quickly, and the less important stuff gets dropped or deferred, and it all happens without resistance and without deliberate prioritization.
But this only works up to a point. When there is so much incoming work that I can’t cycle through the list often enough to maintain a strong intuition for the list as a whole, then WIP and misalignment increase and the scanning and standing-out mechanisms are less and less effective. I can still figure out where to focus, and get the right things done quickly and effectively, but I need to go off-list to do it.
When I get more work than I can possibly do, Long List systems can still process it very effectively. The important work gets done quickly, and the less important stuff gets dropped or deferred, and it all happens without resistance and without deliberate prioritization.
But this only works up to a point. When there is so much incoming work that I can’t cycle through the list often enough to maintain a strong intuition for the list as a whole, then WIP and misalignment increase and the scanning and standing-out mechanisms are less and less effective. I can still figure out where to focus, and get the right things done quickly and effectively, but I need to go off-list to do it.
November 7, 2018 at 4:10 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Of course I can only judge from what you wrote, but I see an issue here:
{
At the same time, there are all these new interesting tasks arriving on my list! THOSE ones DO stand out -- thus causing WIP to increase.
}
When you arrive at that point, you should know by experience by now that engaging in these tasks will lead you to that place again, where WIP gets out of control and you'll have to leave the list etc etc
But instead of being disciplined about it, you'd rather satisfy your intellectual curiosity. Because if you don't get enough of these kicks, your job becomes boring. At least too boring for your investigative mind. That is a great deep seated fear, to be bored again.
Well, I don't know if that is the case. I can't. But there must be some reason why you are evading the WIP for tackling new tasks. You are tricking your sense of duty by declaring that these NEW and COOL tasks MUST be done, so why not do them now?
Normally your intuition should say "STOP! We already have too much going on!", but it doesn't and that is something in your thinking or feeling that does that.
My guess, as stated above, is the evading the pain of boredom. The boredom that the modern workplace is and working 8 hours in an office is just a pain and a load of crap. It just is.
It's too much. I am a geek, I like to work and all that. Sometimes for looong hours happily so. But you know it, I know it. The shit the normies bring up all week long is just -- not a good stuffing for a hungry brain. It's boring and tedious and they are shallow and dumb.
OK, again, I don't know of course, but that's what I honestly think. Hopefully it was at least funny, if not helping somehow.
Of course I can only judge from what you wrote, but I see an issue here:
{
At the same time, there are all these new interesting tasks arriving on my list! THOSE ones DO stand out -- thus causing WIP to increase.
}
When you arrive at that point, you should know by experience by now that engaging in these tasks will lead you to that place again, where WIP gets out of control and you'll have to leave the list etc etc
But instead of being disciplined about it, you'd rather satisfy your intellectual curiosity. Because if you don't get enough of these kicks, your job becomes boring. At least too boring for your investigative mind. That is a great deep seated fear, to be bored again.
Well, I don't know if that is the case. I can't. But there must be some reason why you are evading the WIP for tackling new tasks. You are tricking your sense of duty by declaring that these NEW and COOL tasks MUST be done, so why not do them now?
Normally your intuition should say "STOP! We already have too much going on!", but it doesn't and that is something in your thinking or feeling that does that.
My guess, as stated above, is the evading the pain of boredom. The boredom that the modern workplace is and working 8 hours in an office is just a pain and a load of crap. It just is.
It's too much. I am a geek, I like to work and all that. Sometimes for looong hours happily so. But you know it, I know it. The shit the normies bring up all week long is just -- not a good stuffing for a hungry brain. It's boring and tedious and they are shallow and dumb.
OK, again, I don't know of course, but that's what I honestly think. Hopefully it was at least funny, if not helping somehow.
November 7, 2018 at 5:18 |
Christopher
Christopher
{
It seems to me, the key here is understanding the things that inform your intuition in making the decision to stop working on something, and move to something else.
}
Yes, and developing an understanding what SHOULD be the things that make you change the current task. It's the core issue I think.
It seems to me, the key here is understanding the things that inform your intuition in making the decision to stop working on something, and move to something else.
}
Yes, and developing an understanding what SHOULD be the things that make you change the current task. It's the core issue I think.
November 7, 2018 at 7:02 |
Christopher
Christopher
Seraphim:
<< I can still figure out where to focus, and get the right things done quickly and effectively, but I need to go off-list to do it. >>
I think the following article from 10 years back is relevant. Though it's referring to Do It Tomorrow, it applies to Long List systems (or indeed any system).
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/2/21/project-management.html
<< I can still figure out where to focus, and get the right things done quickly and effectively, but I need to go off-list to do it. >>
I think the following article from 10 years back is relevant. Though it's referring to Do It Tomorrow, it applies to Long List systems (or indeed any system).
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/2/21/project-management.html
November 7, 2018 at 10:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The fear of boredom is real. Many of us are more motivated by novelty than things that motivate neurotypicals.
Ways to make things more interesting.
Gamification is often recommended. Create a game of the task. Give yourself points or rewards. Make it a race. Challenge someone else (or your past or future self.) It doesn't work for me. I see through it too easily.
If it interests you in the moment, and there's not a good reason to do something else, then do it.
Prime yourself so it's easier to see interesting things in the boring task. I often post the most amusing thing I did during the day on FB. (Sometimes the fact that I found it amusing is more amusing than the actual task.) Charting my progress works for a few sessions. Leaving something on my husband's pillow works, but should be used in moderation.
Change it up. Different room, setting, time of day, pen, music, drink.
Having said that, sometimes a firm non-negotiable routine works better. Maybe combine it. Enough non-negotiable routine and ritual that your body prepares, and enough novelty that it's interested. I can only handle a few of those at a time, but when they get going I make great progress, until something disrupts the routine. I'm terrible at rebooting routines.
Also, get comfortable being bored. I find a time limit or specific goal helps. I can be bored for this long.
+++
I also find time of day is important. I used to like boring desk work in the morning and projects in the afternoon. As a stay home Mom, I liked a boring hour of housework in the morning before tackling other things. (A tea thermos broke that routine. Instead of reading a few articles with breakfast, I go to a comfy chair and read until the thermos is empty.)
Ways to make things more interesting.
Gamification is often recommended. Create a game of the task. Give yourself points or rewards. Make it a race. Challenge someone else (or your past or future self.) It doesn't work for me. I see through it too easily.
If it interests you in the moment, and there's not a good reason to do something else, then do it.
Prime yourself so it's easier to see interesting things in the boring task. I often post the most amusing thing I did during the day on FB. (Sometimes the fact that I found it amusing is more amusing than the actual task.) Charting my progress works for a few sessions. Leaving something on my husband's pillow works, but should be used in moderation.
Change it up. Different room, setting, time of day, pen, music, drink.
Having said that, sometimes a firm non-negotiable routine works better. Maybe combine it. Enough non-negotiable routine and ritual that your body prepares, and enough novelty that it's interested. I can only handle a few of those at a time, but when they get going I make great progress, until something disrupts the routine. I'm terrible at rebooting routines.
Also, get comfortable being bored. I find a time limit or specific goal helps. I can be bored for this long.
+++
I also find time of day is important. I used to like boring desk work in the morning and projects in the afternoon. As a stay home Mom, I liked a boring hour of housework in the morning before tackling other things. (A tea thermos broke that routine. Instead of reading a few articles with breakfast, I go to a comfy chair and read until the thermos is empty.)
November 7, 2018 at 17:52 |
Cricket
Cricket
Caibre65 -
<< drawing a line under things and then listing the urgent stuff that needs your attention - surely this is a form of dismissal >>
Yes, I think you have a point. But marking those tasks in some way, or deliberately moving them off my list, always feels so permanent. And in reality, I almost never would go back and read those things again. Just leaving them on the list and starting a new page, or drawing the heavy line, works pretty well for me -- but again I think you are right, it's a kind of "lightweight dismissal". I come back to them naturally after the current crisis-of-focus has been resolved and I have entered into a kind of recovery period after the storm.
<< drawing a line under things and then listing the urgent stuff that needs your attention - surely this is a form of dismissal >>
Yes, I think you have a point. But marking those tasks in some way, or deliberately moving them off my list, always feels so permanent. And in reality, I almost never would go back and read those things again. Just leaving them on the list and starting a new page, or drawing the heavy line, works pretty well for me -- but again I think you are right, it's a kind of "lightweight dismissal". I come back to them naturally after the current crisis-of-focus has been resolved and I have entered into a kind of recovery period after the storm.
November 9, 2018 at 15:29 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
vegheadjones wrote -
<< Fear of completion >>
I can't say I'm aware of having experienced that, but it's very interesting, and I can think of situations where it could be an important factor.
This points to a larger question - what are the other causes that take us away from our current task. I listed three, and you provided this one. There are probably many others.
Another huge one is *batching*. I used to always look for ways to batch similar tasks so I could do them all in one go. It always seemed more efficient to do it that way, and I had a habit of batching things whenever possible. But then I realized, this can create giant backlogs if taken too far. Giant backlogs of all the batched-up WIP. And then managing and prioritizing all those piles. It's easy to think of examples: email, paper mail, similar technical tasks, dishes, laundry, errands, walks to another part of the house, etc. Over the summer I experimented with this -- how far can I get to "one-piece flow". In factories "one-piece flow" can dramatically improve throughput and reduce WIP. So instead of making a pile of things to take out to the garage, why not just take each item immediately and put it away? Instead of piling up the bills till the weekend, why not just get them paid right now? Instead of waiting till there are enough dishes to run a load, why not just wash, dry, and put away immediately? I tried to change my bias away from batching and more toward get-it-done-now-if-at-all-possible. And the results were amazing. It reduced clutter tremendously! Things got DONE, not just moved forward. Backlogs started to shrink or were eliminated completely. I ran into some situations where batching still made sense (like errands to the city an hour away) -- but I found it was still very helpful to run *smaller* batches whenever possible. Get to the results faster, and eliminate the WIP.
As Christopher wrote - << developing an understanding what SHOULD be the things that make you change the current task. It's the core issue I think. >>
Yes, I agree, it's a fundamental issue.
<< I've realized I often used "Little and Often" as an excuse not to finish something, even if I am, say, 95% done. I may be worried how the work will be received, or about what the next step might be, or something else. As you can imagine it does lead to much WIP. >>
Over the summer, in addition to those batching experiments, I did a lot of other experimenting with changing my bias away from "little and often" and more toward "completion" -- pushing through on a task till it was done. I learned a lot from that.
<< Fear of completion >>
I can't say I'm aware of having experienced that, but it's very interesting, and I can think of situations where it could be an important factor.
This points to a larger question - what are the other causes that take us away from our current task. I listed three, and you provided this one. There are probably many others.
Another huge one is *batching*. I used to always look for ways to batch similar tasks so I could do them all in one go. It always seemed more efficient to do it that way, and I had a habit of batching things whenever possible. But then I realized, this can create giant backlogs if taken too far. Giant backlogs of all the batched-up WIP. And then managing and prioritizing all those piles. It's easy to think of examples: email, paper mail, similar technical tasks, dishes, laundry, errands, walks to another part of the house, etc. Over the summer I experimented with this -- how far can I get to "one-piece flow". In factories "one-piece flow" can dramatically improve throughput and reduce WIP. So instead of making a pile of things to take out to the garage, why not just take each item immediately and put it away? Instead of piling up the bills till the weekend, why not just get them paid right now? Instead of waiting till there are enough dishes to run a load, why not just wash, dry, and put away immediately? I tried to change my bias away from batching and more toward get-it-done-now-if-at-all-possible. And the results were amazing. It reduced clutter tremendously! Things got DONE, not just moved forward. Backlogs started to shrink or were eliminated completely. I ran into some situations where batching still made sense (like errands to the city an hour away) -- but I found it was still very helpful to run *smaller* batches whenever possible. Get to the results faster, and eliminate the WIP.
As Christopher wrote - << developing an understanding what SHOULD be the things that make you change the current task. It's the core issue I think. >>
Yes, I agree, it's a fundamental issue.
<< I've realized I often used "Little and Often" as an excuse not to finish something, even if I am, say, 95% done. I may be worried how the work will be received, or about what the next step might be, or something else. As you can imagine it does lead to much WIP. >>
Over the summer, in addition to those batching experiments, I did a lot of other experimenting with changing my bias away from "little and often" and more toward "completion" -- pushing through on a task till it was done. I learned a lot from that.
November 9, 2018 at 15:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< I found it was still very helpful to run *smaller* batches whenever possible. Get to the results faster, and eliminate the WIP. >>
This is one of those moments when I feel that I have been totally incompetent over the years at getting my points across!
What you've just described is exactly what I mean by "little and often". My list is full of tasks like:
Take x out to garage
Buy x
Do dishes
Tidy desk
Sharpen knives
etc etc etc
These will come up numerous times during the day and each time I will do them regardless of how little there is to do. I work on small batches.
On the other hand, working on large tasks till completion can lead to "overtraining" - see my replies to your contemporaneous posts on the other thread. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725827#post2725844
<< I found it was still very helpful to run *smaller* batches whenever possible. Get to the results faster, and eliminate the WIP. >>
This is one of those moments when I feel that I have been totally incompetent over the years at getting my points across!
What you've just described is exactly what I mean by "little and often". My list is full of tasks like:
Take x out to garage
Buy x
Do dishes
Tidy desk
Sharpen knives
etc etc etc
These will come up numerous times during the day and each time I will do them regardless of how little there is to do. I work on small batches.
On the other hand, working on large tasks till completion can lead to "overtraining" - see my replies to your contemporaneous posts on the other thread. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725827#post2725844
November 9, 2018 at 17:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<These will come up numerous times during the day and each time I will do them regardless of how little there is to do. I work on small batches.>>
Mark, could you elaborate on this a little? When you say "each time" are you referring to each time you make a pass on your list you do a little work on them? I think that little and often contains a grand key to getting a lot of my pesky things done, but I just haven't really figured out how to incorporate it well into my lists yet with routine, or small items like "take x out to garbage". I don't know if I even know what question to ask here, except that I'm not quite sure what it really like like when you say " these will come up numberous times and each time I do them". I'd love to just be a fly on your wall and observe how you incorporate small or routine tasks into your day.
Mark, could you elaborate on this a little? When you say "each time" are you referring to each time you make a pass on your list you do a little work on them? I think that little and often contains a grand key to getting a lot of my pesky things done, but I just haven't really figured out how to incorporate it well into my lists yet with routine, or small items like "take x out to garbage". I don't know if I even know what question to ask here, except that I'm not quite sure what it really like like when you say " these will come up numberous times and each time I do them". I'd love to just be a fly on your wall and observe how you incorporate small or routine tasks into your day.
November 10, 2018 at 0:09 |
Cameron
Cameron
Cameron:
<< When you say "each time" are you referring to each time you make a pass on your list you do a little work on them? >>
Sorry not to have been clearer. No, what I meant was that each time that I select them (i.e. they stand out), I work on them regardless of whether there is a large or small amount of work to do. In other words I don't have a minimum size of task.
Don't be reluctant to put small items on your list. I would certainly put "Take x out to garbage" on my list. And you do small items like this when they stand out - just the same as a large item. There are numerous explanations in this blog as to what "stand out" means in this context. If you are not sure, do a search in the blog's search box (in the right column) for "standing out".
<< When you say "each time" are you referring to each time you make a pass on your list you do a little work on them? >>
Sorry not to have been clearer. No, what I meant was that each time that I select them (i.e. they stand out), I work on them regardless of whether there is a large or small amount of work to do. In other words I don't have a minimum size of task.
Don't be reluctant to put small items on your list. I would certainly put "Take x out to garbage" on my list. And you do small items like this when they stand out - just the same as a large item. There are numerous explanations in this blog as to what "stand out" means in this context. If you are not sure, do a search in the blog's search box (in the right column) for "standing out".
November 10, 2018 at 2:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim's description of how a long list behaves when there is a chaotic amount of incoming work lead me to think of this system, SLIGHTLY like DIT.
1. make a Simple scanning list. Call it Doing.
2. Make a Later list.
3. When you add new tasks put it in Later, unless you commit to doing it soon. When you pick a task to work on, move it to Doing. Keep it in Doing until it is done (reenter at the end as you work it.). If It is done but a future repeat of the task comes up, you may put it to Later.
4. Work the Doing list according to the rules of Simple Scanning with the above exceptions.
5. One task in that list will be to scan Later for additional tasks to do.
6. Another task might be to trim that Later list because it csn surely get unkempt as you aren't scanning it frequently.
Untested so can't recommend, but it would definitely avoid the chaos described by Seraphim. Seems to me this would also work with programmer tasks which tend to come in large batches even though you can only work small batches.
1. make a Simple scanning list. Call it Doing.
2. Make a Later list.
3. When you add new tasks put it in Later, unless you commit to doing it soon. When you pick a task to work on, move it to Doing. Keep it in Doing until it is done (reenter at the end as you work it.). If It is done but a future repeat of the task comes up, you may put it to Later.
4. Work the Doing list according to the rules of Simple Scanning with the above exceptions.
5. One task in that list will be to scan Later for additional tasks to do.
6. Another task might be to trim that Later list because it csn surely get unkempt as you aren't scanning it frequently.
Untested so can't recommend, but it would definitely avoid the chaos described by Seraphim. Seems to me this would also work with programmer tasks which tend to come in large batches even though you can only work small batches.
November 11, 2018 at 23:56 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim,
I am using a heuristic that indirectly limits WIP. It is for Long List systems like Simple Scanning or FAF, which let you repeatedly enter and action a task on the last ("open") page while pushing you quickly through the other ("closed") pages. I favor a slight variant of the new "trapped" AF2, which I will describe later.
To create a sense of flow with pseudo-limited WIP,
- Pick a "Focus Item" that you can probably complete in under half a day.
- Write that item at the end of your Long List, prefaced by an "F" in a circle.
- Process your list according to your chosen rules.
- When on the last/open page, strive to keep the circled "F" at the end of your list.
- When on a closed page with a circled "F," select it when your scan reaches it. (this should only happen occasionally)
That is, on the open page, if "F" is not at the end, then select it as your next task, make some progress, and rewrite it at the end. Then with "F" at the end, scan the page per your Long List rules for something that stands out, and repeat. Don't work on F twice in a row, for example if you've just rewritten F and then added a few more tasks after it. Perform each non-F scan as if the F selections did not happen; simply resume scanning from the task you worked on before you were forced to select F.
This creates a work pattern of (mostly) F-a-F-b-F-c...,
where F is the Focus Item, and a/b/c... are other items on your open page. It keeps you focused on F until you have finished it or left the page, while letting all the little essentials slip through the cracks. You should probably "instruct your intuition" to pick small upkeep items like checking email, not larger items that might compete with F in size, scope, or mental energy. This is where the WIP pseudo-limit comes in. There is only one "F" at a time, and it is prioritized for flow (F for Focus, F for Flow!). However, it never completely blocks the pipe, so you can get other essentials done in the background.
I have found that policing in-between items is a sad game of diminishing returns, so I place no hard restrictions on what I can select for the in-between items. There is nothing wrong with focusing on a second project repeatedly in those in-between slots, if you are up to date on all the essentials. There is also nothing wrong with making many small explorative starts on other things, to find out what you may want to focus on as your next "F." But by having only one "F" at a time and creating flow for it and its linear chain of successors, we accomplish the same thing that limited WIP is supposed to give us.
For some reason, I find it much easier to follow the rule "always keep F at the end" than the rule "take turns working on F and other things," so that is why I've stated it this way. It seems the latter is too abstract for the mentality I am in while scanning for the next task and being buffeted about by resistance and novelty seeking and such things.
My "trapped AF2" variant, tailored for alternating F:
Scan the list from the end, at the open page. As long as you are on the open page, restart every scan from the end. Once you leave the open page (or it fills up), scan the entire list as if it is one long closed page, with no trapping or restarting. Keep the intention to return quickly to the open page, so you are not looking to start up anything big or complex. If you are drawn to something big or complex, simply consider it as a candidate for the next F. In urgent cases, drop the current F and take up the new one, but if you've picked a reasonably sized F, you can probably just hurry it up to make room for the new one.
You may want to keep a list of good candidates for the next F. Think of it as a project. Just as we keep separate notes on complex projects, you can keep a list of candidate F-tasks as a planning project whose goal is to prioritize your next major tasks. Since you only really need to know your next F, you could record just one candidate at a time. A handful of candidates will give you some flexibility and a place to organize your priorities, but there's no need for anything large or complex. A single page of text ought to handle it. The list also ought to include the parent projects of recently worked F's, so you can follow up on their next steps. There is nothing wrong with picking a long chain of F's from the same project, as long as you avoid hyperfocus by pausing frequently to check for other priorities, hence the choice of half-day items.
I don't use this F-pattern all day long. My Long List is actually my Notebook #2, while I run my day from a "Day Page" in Notebook #1, which stays open to that page all day. The Day Page lists any scheduled activities or time-based reminders down the left side and short notes or incoming items down the right. Most of these incoming items never make it onto the Long List, because they are real-time or same-day urgent, and I work on them directly from the Day Page. I also use the right column for short sequences of things I know I want to do next, often in SMEMA form. I write "LL session" to indicate that it's time to work on the Long List, and that's when I use this F-pattern. If you're working entirely from a Long List, you'll probably want to switch into and out of "F-pattern mode" based on how much you've been at it or if you are feeling fatigued by it or something. Then it will feel invigorating to just flit about on your list without having to keep plugging away at the same old thing... until you get anxious again about all the unfinished tasks and you are pulled naturally back to F-mode.
That's all I've got for now. I hope there's something here for you!
I am using a heuristic that indirectly limits WIP. It is for Long List systems like Simple Scanning or FAF, which let you repeatedly enter and action a task on the last ("open") page while pushing you quickly through the other ("closed") pages. I favor a slight variant of the new "trapped" AF2, which I will describe later.
To create a sense of flow with pseudo-limited WIP,
- Pick a "Focus Item" that you can probably complete in under half a day.
- Write that item at the end of your Long List, prefaced by an "F" in a circle.
- Process your list according to your chosen rules.
- When on the last/open page, strive to keep the circled "F" at the end of your list.
- When on a closed page with a circled "F," select it when your scan reaches it. (this should only happen occasionally)
That is, on the open page, if "F" is not at the end, then select it as your next task, make some progress, and rewrite it at the end. Then with "F" at the end, scan the page per your Long List rules for something that stands out, and repeat. Don't work on F twice in a row, for example if you've just rewritten F and then added a few more tasks after it. Perform each non-F scan as if the F selections did not happen; simply resume scanning from the task you worked on before you were forced to select F.
This creates a work pattern of (mostly) F-a-F-b-F-c...,
where F is the Focus Item, and a/b/c... are other items on your open page. It keeps you focused on F until you have finished it or left the page, while letting all the little essentials slip through the cracks. You should probably "instruct your intuition" to pick small upkeep items like checking email, not larger items that might compete with F in size, scope, or mental energy. This is where the WIP pseudo-limit comes in. There is only one "F" at a time, and it is prioritized for flow (F for Focus, F for Flow!). However, it never completely blocks the pipe, so you can get other essentials done in the background.
I have found that policing in-between items is a sad game of diminishing returns, so I place no hard restrictions on what I can select for the in-between items. There is nothing wrong with focusing on a second project repeatedly in those in-between slots, if you are up to date on all the essentials. There is also nothing wrong with making many small explorative starts on other things, to find out what you may want to focus on as your next "F." But by having only one "F" at a time and creating flow for it and its linear chain of successors, we accomplish the same thing that limited WIP is supposed to give us.
For some reason, I find it much easier to follow the rule "always keep F at the end" than the rule "take turns working on F and other things," so that is why I've stated it this way. It seems the latter is too abstract for the mentality I am in while scanning for the next task and being buffeted about by resistance and novelty seeking and such things.
My "trapped AF2" variant, tailored for alternating F:
Scan the list from the end, at the open page. As long as you are on the open page, restart every scan from the end. Once you leave the open page (or it fills up), scan the entire list as if it is one long closed page, with no trapping or restarting. Keep the intention to return quickly to the open page, so you are not looking to start up anything big or complex. If you are drawn to something big or complex, simply consider it as a candidate for the next F. In urgent cases, drop the current F and take up the new one, but if you've picked a reasonably sized F, you can probably just hurry it up to make room for the new one.
You may want to keep a list of good candidates for the next F. Think of it as a project. Just as we keep separate notes on complex projects, you can keep a list of candidate F-tasks as a planning project whose goal is to prioritize your next major tasks. Since you only really need to know your next F, you could record just one candidate at a time. A handful of candidates will give you some flexibility and a place to organize your priorities, but there's no need for anything large or complex. A single page of text ought to handle it. The list also ought to include the parent projects of recently worked F's, so you can follow up on their next steps. There is nothing wrong with picking a long chain of F's from the same project, as long as you avoid hyperfocus by pausing frequently to check for other priorities, hence the choice of half-day items.
I don't use this F-pattern all day long. My Long List is actually my Notebook #2, while I run my day from a "Day Page" in Notebook #1, which stays open to that page all day. The Day Page lists any scheduled activities or time-based reminders down the left side and short notes or incoming items down the right. Most of these incoming items never make it onto the Long List, because they are real-time or same-day urgent, and I work on them directly from the Day Page. I also use the right column for short sequences of things I know I want to do next, often in SMEMA form. I write "LL session" to indicate that it's time to work on the Long List, and that's when I use this F-pattern. If you're working entirely from a Long List, you'll probably want to switch into and out of "F-pattern mode" based on how much you've been at it or if you are feeling fatigued by it or something. Then it will feel invigorating to just flit about on your list without having to keep plugging away at the same old thing... until you get anxious again about all the unfinished tasks and you are pulled naturally back to F-mode.
That's all I've got for now. I hope there's something here for you!
January 13, 2019 at 7:21 |
Bernie
Bernie
Hi Bernie,
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful comments. It helped me clarify some things I've been pondering.
I think l understand why Mark has been trying to remove all sense of compulsion or obligation from his methods. The basic premise for all the systems based on the "Standing Out" principle is that we already know intuitively where we need to focus -- we just need to structure the work in such a way to allow our intuition to function most effectively. But a structure that includes compulsory rules tends to create conflict with our intuition.
But we feel we need these rules. The Standing Out process alone doesn't seem to be giving us the right focus. It's easy to feel like we are processing lots of trivia -- to move about aimlessly. There seems to be a problem with our intuition.
But obviously this is in conflict with the basic premise of these systems (that we already know intuitively where we need to focus).
So I've been experimenting with the idea that there is nothing wrong with our intuition at all. Instead, there is something about the way we are introducing things into our awareness that interferes with our intuition, rather than supporting it.
Mark has been claiming for a long time that special markings and symbols are a source of interference. I completely agree with him. And it gets worse when those markings and symbols involve compulsory rules. I've played around with many ideas along these lines, such as my Anchored FVP idea. http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2560976
These ideas can work really well -- until something changes -- and your intuition quickly perceives and assesses the change and pulls you in the right direction to address it -- but your system doesn't respond as quickly. Now there is a conflict between your intuition and your rules (which are designed to support your intuition!).
I really like to be able to rely on my rules -- so this conflict is almost a kind of cognitive dissonance. I keep pretending that my system is working. But really, my intuition is languishing and suffering. This situation creates resistance to the system as a whole. Eventually it just crashes.
Arbitrary WIP limits have the same result, whether in a Kanban system or some other system. If we try to force ourselves to keep the limit, we create all kinds of conflict with what we know is the right thing to do -- sometimes we NEED to violate the limit. Priorities change, urgent things come up, etc. A good approach with Kanban is to have a limit, but during the course of doing the work, you pretend like it's not there. During period retrospective you can look back and see, did we violate any WIP limits? If yes, start looking into the root causes. Fix them. The process improves. But in practice, WIP limits typically ossify into hard rules. Management gets reports about what teams are violating their WIP limits. There is pressure to keep things under the WIP limit. The system forces people to ignore what they know is right, and play the game, because that's how they are measured. I think it happens with personal time management as well. Cf. the cognitive dissonance mentioned above.
So I am guessing the compulsory elements of the F-pattern method will eventually crash and burn also. But the way you try to keep the F-flag item close to the end of the list seems like a kind of game; I can see how that might be a way to engage your intuition rather than interfere with it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful comments. It helped me clarify some things I've been pondering.
I think l understand why Mark has been trying to remove all sense of compulsion or obligation from his methods. The basic premise for all the systems based on the "Standing Out" principle is that we already know intuitively where we need to focus -- we just need to structure the work in such a way to allow our intuition to function most effectively. But a structure that includes compulsory rules tends to create conflict with our intuition.
But we feel we need these rules. The Standing Out process alone doesn't seem to be giving us the right focus. It's easy to feel like we are processing lots of trivia -- to move about aimlessly. There seems to be a problem with our intuition.
But obviously this is in conflict with the basic premise of these systems (that we already know intuitively where we need to focus).
So I've been experimenting with the idea that there is nothing wrong with our intuition at all. Instead, there is something about the way we are introducing things into our awareness that interferes with our intuition, rather than supporting it.
Mark has been claiming for a long time that special markings and symbols are a source of interference. I completely agree with him. And it gets worse when those markings and symbols involve compulsory rules. I've played around with many ideas along these lines, such as my Anchored FVP idea. http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2560976
These ideas can work really well -- until something changes -- and your intuition quickly perceives and assesses the change and pulls you in the right direction to address it -- but your system doesn't respond as quickly. Now there is a conflict between your intuition and your rules (which are designed to support your intuition!).
I really like to be able to rely on my rules -- so this conflict is almost a kind of cognitive dissonance. I keep pretending that my system is working. But really, my intuition is languishing and suffering. This situation creates resistance to the system as a whole. Eventually it just crashes.
Arbitrary WIP limits have the same result, whether in a Kanban system or some other system. If we try to force ourselves to keep the limit, we create all kinds of conflict with what we know is the right thing to do -- sometimes we NEED to violate the limit. Priorities change, urgent things come up, etc. A good approach with Kanban is to have a limit, but during the course of doing the work, you pretend like it's not there. During period retrospective you can look back and see, did we violate any WIP limits? If yes, start looking into the root causes. Fix them. The process improves. But in practice, WIP limits typically ossify into hard rules. Management gets reports about what teams are violating their WIP limits. There is pressure to keep things under the WIP limit. The system forces people to ignore what they know is right, and play the game, because that's how they are measured. I think it happens with personal time management as well. Cf. the cognitive dissonance mentioned above.
So I am guessing the compulsory elements of the F-pattern method will eventually crash and burn also. But the way you try to keep the F-flag item close to the end of the list seems like a kind of game; I can see how that might be a way to engage your intuition rather than interfere with it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
January 13, 2019 at 23:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
OK, so back to my experimental hypothesis: there is nothing wrong with our intuition at all. We already know intuitively where we should focus. Rather there is something wrong about the way we are introducing things into our awareness that interferes with our intuition, rather than supporting it.
In light of my recent experiments, three things come particularly to mind:
(1) The list gets too long - intuition for the whole is lost
(2) Inactive items are presented too frequently - distracting from my current focus
(3) Dismissing or deleting items before you are ready for it - creating anxiety that something important is being lost
For (1), I realized that No-List does a GREAT job maintaining intuition for one's whole context -- even better than any Long List system, I think. So I decided to use No-List as the basis of my next round of experiments.
For (2), I realized that systems that lead you to constantly cycle in-order through the list (such as AF1, Simple Scanning, and Randomizer) are inevitably going to present these inactive items to you. With reverse-scanning methods like AF2 and FVP, this isn't so much of a problem.
On the other hand, the reverse-scanning methods might neglect the earlier items completely, so they loose a feel of completeness, they feel unsystematic. Which leads to (3).
For (3), any rules calling for dismissal, forced deletion, etc., are super problematic and create resistance to the system. Dismissal was a very useful feature of AF1 but almost everybody resisted it at least sometimes. For me, I just wasn't ready to dismiss those items - but I wasn't ready to take action, either. Periodically weeding the list can be helpful, but whenever my list gets too long and I lose a sense of the whole context, there are just too many items I don't have a good feel, whether its OK to delete, or not. Then with systems like FVP where the items just sort of fade away, there is always a niggling feeling that something important is being neglected. All these things interfere with one's intuition.
So to address (2) and (3), I decided I needed to find a way to maintain the focus on the active items, and only review older/inactive items when I need a break from the active items. Don't let this be dictated by rules - let it happen intuitively. Deletion also needed to happen intuitively, not dictated by any rules. I never had any fear deleting things with No-List, so maybe using No-List as the basis for everything would take care of this.
So this is what led me to my latest experimental method described here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943
In light of my recent experiments, three things come particularly to mind:
(1) The list gets too long - intuition for the whole is lost
(2) Inactive items are presented too frequently - distracting from my current focus
(3) Dismissing or deleting items before you are ready for it - creating anxiety that something important is being lost
For (1), I realized that No-List does a GREAT job maintaining intuition for one's whole context -- even better than any Long List system, I think. So I decided to use No-List as the basis of my next round of experiments.
For (2), I realized that systems that lead you to constantly cycle in-order through the list (such as AF1, Simple Scanning, and Randomizer) are inevitably going to present these inactive items to you. With reverse-scanning methods like AF2 and FVP, this isn't so much of a problem.
On the other hand, the reverse-scanning methods might neglect the earlier items completely, so they loose a feel of completeness, they feel unsystematic. Which leads to (3).
For (3), any rules calling for dismissal, forced deletion, etc., are super problematic and create resistance to the system. Dismissal was a very useful feature of AF1 but almost everybody resisted it at least sometimes. For me, I just wasn't ready to dismiss those items - but I wasn't ready to take action, either. Periodically weeding the list can be helpful, but whenever my list gets too long and I lose a sense of the whole context, there are just too many items I don't have a good feel, whether its OK to delete, or not. Then with systems like FVP where the items just sort of fade away, there is always a niggling feeling that something important is being neglected. All these things interfere with one's intuition.
So to address (2) and (3), I decided I needed to find a way to maintain the focus on the active items, and only review older/inactive items when I need a break from the active items. Don't let this be dictated by rules - let it happen intuitively. Deletion also needed to happen intuitively, not dictated by any rules. I never had any fear deleting things with No-List, so maybe using No-List as the basis for everything would take care of this.
So this is what led me to my latest experimental method described here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943
January 13, 2019 at 23:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
"I am guessing the compulsory elements of the F-pattern method will eventually crash and burn also."
Yes, that is my fear! Although, I don't have a rule that says I *must* use this pattern. The anxieties you described about feeling your energy dissipated among too much WIP are exactly what drove me to concoct this pattern, and they will drive when to use the pattern going forward, so I am viewing that as intuitively driven. This anxiety for me typically leads to resistance of the whole list, so if I react right away by switching to F-mode, hopefully I'll stay in the list. Even the rule of completing that half-day F target is soft, to be canceled when there is a good reason.
It also helps that I personally happen to like this pattern. It was the thing I loved about SMEMA: I tended to write a-F-b as my SMEMA list, so that upon doing some F, I would cross it out and immediately rewrite its next step, then pick a "c" to follow it (b-F-c). Upon finishing the larger F result, sometimes I picked a new F right away, and sometimes I felt pressure from too many varied things, so I would take a break from the pattern. I simply followed my intuition on that. Having learned how it feels to let that pattern coax me through thickets of anxiety along a thin path of incremental productivity, I now actually like how that feels. I imagine that will often drive me intuitively to use this pattern, even for un-scary things.
Ever since the SMEMA days, I've tried to recreate the F pattern in our Long List systems, but most do not reliably support it for very long before the page traversals disrupt it. However, I was not writing the circled "F" and using my visual rule about keeping it at the end, so perhaps that would help.
"But the way you try to keep the F-flag item close to the end of the list seems like a kind of game; I can see how that might be a way to engage your intuition rather than interfere with it."
Yes again, that is what I am hoping!
It certainly has felt good so far. The project I had been resisting for weeks, which led me to try this, is now done. I did a lot of it in *ridiculously* tiny batches that kept the little game going until finally I had this miraculous energy to just do it, so I finished it in two longer sessions. When it was on my Long List, I was occasionally picking it up and making little lackadaisical fits and starts without any real progress. It's the consistent (F)ocus that finally broke through.
"I am guessing the compulsory elements of the F-pattern method will eventually crash and burn also."
Yes, that is my fear! Although, I don't have a rule that says I *must* use this pattern. The anxieties you described about feeling your energy dissipated among too much WIP are exactly what drove me to concoct this pattern, and they will drive when to use the pattern going forward, so I am viewing that as intuitively driven. This anxiety for me typically leads to resistance of the whole list, so if I react right away by switching to F-mode, hopefully I'll stay in the list. Even the rule of completing that half-day F target is soft, to be canceled when there is a good reason.
It also helps that I personally happen to like this pattern. It was the thing I loved about SMEMA: I tended to write a-F-b as my SMEMA list, so that upon doing some F, I would cross it out and immediately rewrite its next step, then pick a "c" to follow it (b-F-c). Upon finishing the larger F result, sometimes I picked a new F right away, and sometimes I felt pressure from too many varied things, so I would take a break from the pattern. I simply followed my intuition on that. Having learned how it feels to let that pattern coax me through thickets of anxiety along a thin path of incremental productivity, I now actually like how that feels. I imagine that will often drive me intuitively to use this pattern, even for un-scary things.
Ever since the SMEMA days, I've tried to recreate the F pattern in our Long List systems, but most do not reliably support it for very long before the page traversals disrupt it. However, I was not writing the circled "F" and using my visual rule about keeping it at the end, so perhaps that would help.
"But the way you try to keep the F-flag item close to the end of the list seems like a kind of game; I can see how that might be a way to engage your intuition rather than interfere with it."
Yes again, that is what I am hoping!
It certainly has felt good so far. The project I had been resisting for weeks, which led me to try this, is now done. I did a lot of it in *ridiculously* tiny batches that kept the little game going until finally I had this miraculous energy to just do it, so I finished it in two longer sessions. When it was on my Long List, I was occasionally picking it up and making little lackadaisical fits and starts without any real progress. It's the consistent (F)ocus that finally broke through.
January 14, 2019 at 2:14 |
Bernie
Bernie
The comment about WIP limits getting in the way is true, but for a personal operation only. For a company, failing to heed the WIP limit is the same as in Goldratt's factory. You build up inventory, when what you should be doing is raising a flag to correct the process. This may mean shifting your responsibility to help the downstream backlog get cleared. Yes, you are slower now, but the factory itself gets faster.
In a personal context, you yourself know the entire context, so you (in this theory) know intuitively if one thing should be worked on more rather than some other thing
In a personal context, you yourself know the entire context, so you (in this theory) know intuitively if one thing should be worked on more rather than some other thing
January 14, 2019 at 4:06 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Bernie -
<< It's the consistent (F)ocus that finally broke through. >>
I hope it continues to work for you!
I think it's fascinating that so many of us are experimenting with better ways to enable sustained focus on a few key items, and coming up with such different methods for doing it. It's really difficult to predict how these methods will play out over time, and what side effects will emerge from the system dynamics.
<< It's the consistent (F)ocus that finally broke through. >>
I hope it continues to work for you!
I think it's fascinating that so many of us are experimenting with better ways to enable sustained focus on a few key items, and coming up with such different methods for doing it. It's really difficult to predict how these methods will play out over time, and what side effects will emerge from the system dynamics.
January 15, 2019 at 0:06 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu -
Regarding WIP limits... I see your point. And now I see that WIP limits aren't such a great example of arbitrary measures. Using it as an example probably obfuscated my main point rather than elucidating it.
I was trying to give an example of artificial measures that disrupt the process. Deming calls these "the voice of the customer": goals, metrics, specifications imposed upon a system from the outside without regard for the actual dynamics of the system. They are important targets but we can't manage effectively simply by demanding that the system complies with these results.
It's the *process* that generates the results -- the system dynamics. The results are "the voice of the process". Deming demands that we use the "voice of the process" to understand what makes a system generate the results it does, find out WHY it generates those results, and make process changes to get improved results. Improvements don't come from imposing artificial goals, targets, and measurements on the system output.
If the voice of the process doesn't align with the voice of the customer, management typically takes the approach of blaming the people who are operating the process. "You exceeded the WIP limit!! What is wrong with you!!"
Instead management should look to understand the process better to see WHY the operator exceeded the WIP limit.
http://demingalliance.org/resources/articles/the-voice-of-the-customer-and-the-voice-of-the-process
WIP limits can be really useful to tell you when to pull new work. But sometimes it's the right decision to pull new work even when it exceeds the limit. I think this is true in business as well as personal life.
Regarding WIP limits... I see your point. And now I see that WIP limits aren't such a great example of arbitrary measures. Using it as an example probably obfuscated my main point rather than elucidating it.
I was trying to give an example of artificial measures that disrupt the process. Deming calls these "the voice of the customer": goals, metrics, specifications imposed upon a system from the outside without regard for the actual dynamics of the system. They are important targets but we can't manage effectively simply by demanding that the system complies with these results.
It's the *process* that generates the results -- the system dynamics. The results are "the voice of the process". Deming demands that we use the "voice of the process" to understand what makes a system generate the results it does, find out WHY it generates those results, and make process changes to get improved results. Improvements don't come from imposing artificial goals, targets, and measurements on the system output.
If the voice of the process doesn't align with the voice of the customer, management typically takes the approach of blaming the people who are operating the process. "You exceeded the WIP limit!! What is wrong with you!!"
Instead management should look to understand the process better to see WHY the operator exceeded the WIP limit.
http://demingalliance.org/resources/articles/the-voice-of-the-customer-and-the-voice-of-the-process
WIP limits can be really useful to tell you when to pull new work. But sometimes it's the right decision to pull new work even when it exceeds the limit. I think this is true in business as well as personal life.
January 15, 2019 at 1:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Actually your mention of Goldratt is a good case in point.
<< For a company, failing to heed the WIP limit is the same as in Goldratt's factory. You build up inventory, when what you should be doing is raising a flag to correct the process. >>
In Goldratt's methods (specifically Drum-Buffer-Rope), finding the right level of WIP is more of a result than a prescription. You start by doing things like freezing work; allowing the constraint to make itself known and buffering the constraint; reducing batch sizes; etc. These all have the result of reducing WIP, but not by imposing a WIP limit.
Even with the buffer that you put in front of the constraint, you don't act directly on the WIP in the buffer. Instead, the current level of WIP in the buffer determines the actions you should take in other parts of the system.
If you have plenty of buffer, all the time, this suggests one of two things. Either your buffer is not in front of the constraint -- in which case you need to find out where your constraint really is, and go buffer THAT instead. But if you are sure you have identified the constraint correctly, then the buffer status is suggesting you can handle shorter lead times. So the response would be to reduce your production lead times (introduce new work into the system earlier), and if all goes well, reduce your lead times quoted to the customer.
If your buffer is always running low and in danger of starving the constraint, then you might need to lengthen your lead times. Or maybe lower your batch sizes.
So the WIP in the buffer is a kind of proxy for the WIP in the overall system.
<< For a company, failing to heed the WIP limit is the same as in Goldratt's factory. You build up inventory, when what you should be doing is raising a flag to correct the process. >>
In Goldratt's methods (specifically Drum-Buffer-Rope), finding the right level of WIP is more of a result than a prescription. You start by doing things like freezing work; allowing the constraint to make itself known and buffering the constraint; reducing batch sizes; etc. These all have the result of reducing WIP, but not by imposing a WIP limit.
Even with the buffer that you put in front of the constraint, you don't act directly on the WIP in the buffer. Instead, the current level of WIP in the buffer determines the actions you should take in other parts of the system.
If you have plenty of buffer, all the time, this suggests one of two things. Either your buffer is not in front of the constraint -- in which case you need to find out where your constraint really is, and go buffer THAT instead. But if you are sure you have identified the constraint correctly, then the buffer status is suggesting you can handle shorter lead times. So the response would be to reduce your production lead times (introduce new work into the system earlier), and if all goes well, reduce your lead times quoted to the customer.
If your buffer is always running low and in danger of starving the constraint, then you might need to lengthen your lead times. Or maybe lower your batch sizes.
So the WIP in the buffer is a kind of proxy for the WIP in the overall system.
January 15, 2019 at 1:06 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
So to put that in the Kanban terms I know, you might start with a pull from the customer, and following that back through the chain, you get a minimal amount of work happening. But that will leave idleness all along, so you increase the pull, and grow the work, and get more throughput. At some point you will reach max capacity as constrained by your bottleneck, and you can only increase capacity by retooling your resources around the constraint.
And yes, that makes sense. Yet I'm not the expert in these matters and I know people like David Anderson have been applying the Kanban by employing an artificial WIP limit as the driver for process improvement, with minimizing cycle time being an objective.
And yes, that makes sense. Yet I'm not the expert in these matters and I know people like David Anderson have been applying the Kanban by employing an artificial WIP limit as the driver for process improvement, with minimizing cycle time being an objective.
January 15, 2019 at 3:08 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Yes, that's a great example.
I think you can get a very similar result by making a guess at a good WIP limit and then trying different variants to see how it impacts throughput and cycle time.
Like I said earlier, I was probably mistaken in using WIP limits as an example of arbitrary targets that disrupt process flow. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with WIP limits. They are a problem when management misuses them to beat people up. And they can clog up a process if they are chosen arbitrarily and enforced without evaluating the results.
The mechanic in the DIT book had a WIP limit of one. (Though I don't remember Mark using that kind of terminology in the book.)
Peter Drucker advocates a WIP limit of one, or in some cases, two (in terms of "initiatives" or large tasks spanning weeks of time). But never more than two. (Cf. The Effective Executive)
I have a book on my shelf called Why Limit WIP, by Jim Benson, who invented (or popularized?) Personal Kanban. (Both are great books, lots of good concepts). I was flipping through it to see if I could get some clues. Clearly there is something about setting WIP limits that enables focus and flow. In our experimenting with WIP limits, if we happen to put the WIP limit on the constraint in our system, it can make a big difference in throughput.
I think that's why kanbans in software development usually put the WIP limit on development or on QA/testing. One or the other is typically the bottleneck. The WIP limit guides you to do whatever you can to help the constraint process its work more effectively.
I think you can get a very similar result by making a guess at a good WIP limit and then trying different variants to see how it impacts throughput and cycle time.
Like I said earlier, I was probably mistaken in using WIP limits as an example of arbitrary targets that disrupt process flow. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with WIP limits. They are a problem when management misuses them to beat people up. And they can clog up a process if they are chosen arbitrarily and enforced without evaluating the results.
The mechanic in the DIT book had a WIP limit of one. (Though I don't remember Mark using that kind of terminology in the book.)
Peter Drucker advocates a WIP limit of one, or in some cases, two (in terms of "initiatives" or large tasks spanning weeks of time). But never more than two. (Cf. The Effective Executive)
I have a book on my shelf called Why Limit WIP, by Jim Benson, who invented (or popularized?) Personal Kanban. (Both are great books, lots of good concepts). I was flipping through it to see if I could get some clues. Clearly there is something about setting WIP limits that enables focus and flow. In our experimenting with WIP limits, if we happen to put the WIP limit on the constraint in our system, it can make a big difference in throughput.
I think that's why kanbans in software development usually put the WIP limit on development or on QA/testing. One or the other is typically the bottleneck. The WIP limit guides you to do whatever you can to help the constraint process its work more effectively.
January 15, 2019 at 4:21 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
As an individual, you are either focusing on something right now, or you are not. Your WIP limit for focusing is one, as a hard physical constraint.
The F-task method I've proposed is not about WIP in the sense you guys are using it, which is why I called it pseudo-limited WIP, but it might be better if I'd never mentioned WIP at all. Rather than focusing on limiting work in progress--which is a losing game for personal work, since we immediately flounder among definitions of work and task size, what counts as "one" WIP unit, whether certain immediate urgencies count as tasks, etc.--focus on creating flow instead.
Flow means that you actually finish something, and then you actually finish something else, and then again and again. It is how networks put packets through to their destination, whether they are pieces of small jobs or large jobs, jobs that would otherwise monopolize the network or jobs that just need a quick slice of attention.
Technically, anyone who does anything at all is creating flow, but I am getting at something more meaningful. I read one email, then I run the dishwasher, then I update the sprinkler settings for today's weather, then I check my other email account, post a funny meme on FaceBook, all the while resisting making a phone call to an attorney... Flow! Right? I "completed" all those things one after another. Check that velocity, Long Live the Long List!
What I'm after is more like: I proofread half a page of an article, take a break to unload the dishes, proofread the rest of the page of the *same* article, take another break to schedule a car service appointment, proofread more of the *same* article... After several hours, something urgent comes along that will require some real focus, not just a quick phone call, so I put aside the article and start focusing ("responsively"--Responsive Focus!!) on the new urgent thing instead. Again, I work on that urgent project in bursts of productive activity interspersed with smaller necessities which just serve to give me a needed break without wasting time. A burst of focus might last anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours, depending on my energy, mood, and affinity for that task.
In my experience, this is the truly constructive meaning of "little and often." It's not that you are starting multitudes of things "often" willy-nilly across the board and working just a "little" on each one. Whether you label each item as "responsive" or "focusing," you'll only get anywhere if you keep bringing your "often" back to a small handful of results, thus "focusing" your energy on them. Whether they are results that emerged to demand your time, and you are thus "responding," or they are things you already wanted to do, so you are "focusing," it really makes no difference. That is, from the perspective of whether you are getting anything done, it makes no difference.
So I'm making no claims about the right way to set WIP or how to classify and slice your work in terms of WIP items. Rather, I am claiming that you can create flow (the whole purpose of WIP) without worrying about WIP in the conventional sense, because if you talk to someone who has a "WIP of 4," let's say, you'll find that *right now* they are talking to you while *not doing* four specific things, because they *actually* have a WIP of one.
A lot of people seem to strike the right "little and often" balance naturally, and I can only imagine that when they use a Long List, they intuitively keep coming back to a small pool of desired results to see a nice sense of flow. People like me do not do this naturally. Even when scanning through a Long List, we do not naturally come back to the same handful of tasks. Instead, we make "little" progress on so many varied things, too "often," that we can go around and around the list without anything really happening. There are many posts in these forums from many people lamenting this sort of thing. It may or may not have anything to do with "ADHD," I don't know. I do know that the premise of this thread sounds to me like *exactly* this issue.
What I am contributing here is that the simplest, and surprisingly valuable, baby step we can take about this is to write the single letter "F" in front of one task that, in a rare sober moment of reflection, is clearly important, and use the game of keeping it at the end of the list to make a small piece of it actually flow through the system. It must be a *small* piece, so that we have the opportunity to respond to other needs by shifting our focus as soon as it's done. But we don't even have to wait for this focused piece to end before responding to another need. We can respond *immediately* to any other need in those "in-between" slots, before the focused slot becomes available.
After a small piece gets through and we have shifted to focus on something else, an even larger picture requires coming back to that first piece, to put its successor through the pipe. That is a whole meta-level of trying to limit your focus to create flow, and right now the only suggestion I have is to keep a list of stuff you recently focused on and try to use it when you pick new pieces to focus one--not terribly brilliant, I know, but perhaps better than nothing. A quick & dirty version of this is available just by glancing back at your Long List at all the old "F" items, especially any that you had to abandon without working on and crossing out. As with many Long List elements, this comes about for free and may be all you need. If you need more, you can always make it a "project" and do your project planning on separate materials with a simple reminder of it in your list.
Well, I will put away my horse cudgel now. I just wanted to make clear a few distinctions that I felt were getting lost.
The F-task method I've proposed is not about WIP in the sense you guys are using it, which is why I called it pseudo-limited WIP, but it might be better if I'd never mentioned WIP at all. Rather than focusing on limiting work in progress--which is a losing game for personal work, since we immediately flounder among definitions of work and task size, what counts as "one" WIP unit, whether certain immediate urgencies count as tasks, etc.--focus on creating flow instead.
Flow means that you actually finish something, and then you actually finish something else, and then again and again. It is how networks put packets through to their destination, whether they are pieces of small jobs or large jobs, jobs that would otherwise monopolize the network or jobs that just need a quick slice of attention.
Technically, anyone who does anything at all is creating flow, but I am getting at something more meaningful. I read one email, then I run the dishwasher, then I update the sprinkler settings for today's weather, then I check my other email account, post a funny meme on FaceBook, all the while resisting making a phone call to an attorney... Flow! Right? I "completed" all those things one after another. Check that velocity, Long Live the Long List!
What I'm after is more like: I proofread half a page of an article, take a break to unload the dishes, proofread the rest of the page of the *same* article, take another break to schedule a car service appointment, proofread more of the *same* article... After several hours, something urgent comes along that will require some real focus, not just a quick phone call, so I put aside the article and start focusing ("responsively"--Responsive Focus!!) on the new urgent thing instead. Again, I work on that urgent project in bursts of productive activity interspersed with smaller necessities which just serve to give me a needed break without wasting time. A burst of focus might last anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours, depending on my energy, mood, and affinity for that task.
In my experience, this is the truly constructive meaning of "little and often." It's not that you are starting multitudes of things "often" willy-nilly across the board and working just a "little" on each one. Whether you label each item as "responsive" or "focusing," you'll only get anywhere if you keep bringing your "often" back to a small handful of results, thus "focusing" your energy on them. Whether they are results that emerged to demand your time, and you are thus "responding," or they are things you already wanted to do, so you are "focusing," it really makes no difference. That is, from the perspective of whether you are getting anything done, it makes no difference.
So I'm making no claims about the right way to set WIP or how to classify and slice your work in terms of WIP items. Rather, I am claiming that you can create flow (the whole purpose of WIP) without worrying about WIP in the conventional sense, because if you talk to someone who has a "WIP of 4," let's say, you'll find that *right now* they are talking to you while *not doing* four specific things, because they *actually* have a WIP of one.
A lot of people seem to strike the right "little and often" balance naturally, and I can only imagine that when they use a Long List, they intuitively keep coming back to a small pool of desired results to see a nice sense of flow. People like me do not do this naturally. Even when scanning through a Long List, we do not naturally come back to the same handful of tasks. Instead, we make "little" progress on so many varied things, too "often," that we can go around and around the list without anything really happening. There are many posts in these forums from many people lamenting this sort of thing. It may or may not have anything to do with "ADHD," I don't know. I do know that the premise of this thread sounds to me like *exactly* this issue.
What I am contributing here is that the simplest, and surprisingly valuable, baby step we can take about this is to write the single letter "F" in front of one task that, in a rare sober moment of reflection, is clearly important, and use the game of keeping it at the end of the list to make a small piece of it actually flow through the system. It must be a *small* piece, so that we have the opportunity to respond to other needs by shifting our focus as soon as it's done. But we don't even have to wait for this focused piece to end before responding to another need. We can respond *immediately* to any other need in those "in-between" slots, before the focused slot becomes available.
After a small piece gets through and we have shifted to focus on something else, an even larger picture requires coming back to that first piece, to put its successor through the pipe. That is a whole meta-level of trying to limit your focus to create flow, and right now the only suggestion I have is to keep a list of stuff you recently focused on and try to use it when you pick new pieces to focus one--not terribly brilliant, I know, but perhaps better than nothing. A quick & dirty version of this is available just by glancing back at your Long List at all the old "F" items, especially any that you had to abandon without working on and crossing out. As with many Long List elements, this comes about for free and may be all you need. If you need more, you can always make it a "project" and do your project planning on separate materials with a simple reminder of it in your list.
Well, I will put away my horse cudgel now. I just wanted to make clear a few distinctions that I felt were getting lost.
January 15, 2019 at 19:48 |
Bernie
Bernie
Have not delved into your entire post, but paragraph 1 contains a misconception. WIP is not what you are doing now, but the sum of things started but not completed. If a project takes 10 hours to complete, and you have done 9 hours worth, then WIP is 9, not 1. If you have a second like project in similar state then WIP is 18.
This only matters if there is value in completing a project. If all your projects are fun projects or maintenance tasks where finishing just means continuing to maintain, then who cares if you finish one early or have them all progressing. But if finishing planning means you get to go on a great adventure, and if that adventure opens doors to future adventures, then you'll be holding yourself back by planning lots of adventures and doing none.
This only matters if there is value in completing a project. If all your projects are fun projects or maintenance tasks where finishing just means continuing to maintain, then who cares if you finish one early or have them all progressing. But if finishing planning means you get to go on a great adventure, and if that adventure opens doors to future adventures, then you'll be holding yourself back by planning lots of adventures and doing none.
January 16, 2019 at 1:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan,
"WIP is not what you are doing now, but the sum of things started but not completed"
Yes, exactly. This is why I point out that I was never talking about WIP. I introduced the technique as pseudo-limited WIP. Instead of limiting WIP and hoping that will create flow, I am pointing out a way to create flow directly, which indirectly limits the variety of things you end up working on, hence pseudo-limited WIP.
"WIP is not what you are doing now, but the sum of things started but not completed"
Yes, exactly. This is why I point out that I was never talking about WIP. I introduced the technique as pseudo-limited WIP. Instead of limiting WIP and hoping that will create flow, I am pointing out a way to create flow directly, which indirectly limits the variety of things you end up working on, hence pseudo-limited WIP.
January 16, 2019 at 3:39 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie, that's a great post, it has so many great ideas and insights in it.
I'm pondering the differences between your F-task method, and my serial-No-List method, and how they dynamics of each system might play out.
I like the "game" aspect of your method. I also like how it tends to create a nice flow, alternating the F-task with meaningful but lightweight tasks. I also like the ease with which it can bookmark old F-tasks when circumstances demand you change focus to a new F-task. And you are right, it's extremely simple. On the other hand, I am afraid it could create cognitive dissonance (at least at first) when the current F-task comes into conflict with your intuition that might be prompting you to pivot to a different F-task. And that can create resistance to the F-task, cloud your intuition, and ultimately create resistance to the whole method. I'm not saying it will work out that way with you; I just know from my own experience that I tend to get into resistance patterns like that. For some reason, whenever I set some rule to focus on a specific task, I am almost guaranteed to work on anything BUT that task. For example, blocking an hour on my calendar to work on a specific task - it just doesn't work for me. LOL But I know people who manage all their time that way and it seems to work very well for them.
With my serial-No-List method, it has the advantage that the focus task will always appear on the last page -- by definition -- as long as you have a good intuition for what the focus task is -- which is generally true. In practice, my focus task just carries forward from day to day, automatically, without any special prompting. On the other hand, when circumstances are changing quickly, and there are several different priorities, and that situation continues for awhile -- or whenever there are other stressors, such as simply being tired, or ill -- I find myself getting more reactive and/or aimless, and my intuition doesn't guide me as well to the right focus. In cases like this, I could see how it might be helpful to have a pre-identified F-task to lean on. But then again, all I need to do is flip back through the last few pages to remind me what I was focusing on over the last few days and get me back on track. I haven't really had a series of stressful days like that since starting this new system, so I am not sure how it will hold out.
Like I said earlier, I think it's fascinating that we are all trying to solve this same problem -- maintain flexibility and intuition and freedom but still find a way to sustain continued focus on key tasks.
On noticing the title of this thread, <<reducing resistance for individual tasks causes WIP and misalignment to increase>>, it makes me think we are on the right track. Too-frequent cycling through a lot of older tasks that are not currently moving really does cause WIP to increase -- it prompts a seedbed approach rather than a focused-effort approach. So trying to find a way to reduce the frequency of exposure to the dormant tasks is important, so you can cycle through the current tasks that have momentum. But for the sake of completeness and closure, it's still seems like it should be important to review the dormant tasks systematically -- even if less frequently. I wonder if my "review during downtime" is systematic enough to give that sense of closure and completeness.
I'm pondering the differences between your F-task method, and my serial-No-List method, and how they dynamics of each system might play out.
I like the "game" aspect of your method. I also like how it tends to create a nice flow, alternating the F-task with meaningful but lightweight tasks. I also like the ease with which it can bookmark old F-tasks when circumstances demand you change focus to a new F-task. And you are right, it's extremely simple. On the other hand, I am afraid it could create cognitive dissonance (at least at first) when the current F-task comes into conflict with your intuition that might be prompting you to pivot to a different F-task. And that can create resistance to the F-task, cloud your intuition, and ultimately create resistance to the whole method. I'm not saying it will work out that way with you; I just know from my own experience that I tend to get into resistance patterns like that. For some reason, whenever I set some rule to focus on a specific task, I am almost guaranteed to work on anything BUT that task. For example, blocking an hour on my calendar to work on a specific task - it just doesn't work for me. LOL But I know people who manage all their time that way and it seems to work very well for them.
With my serial-No-List method, it has the advantage that the focus task will always appear on the last page -- by definition -- as long as you have a good intuition for what the focus task is -- which is generally true. In practice, my focus task just carries forward from day to day, automatically, without any special prompting. On the other hand, when circumstances are changing quickly, and there are several different priorities, and that situation continues for awhile -- or whenever there are other stressors, such as simply being tired, or ill -- I find myself getting more reactive and/or aimless, and my intuition doesn't guide me as well to the right focus. In cases like this, I could see how it might be helpful to have a pre-identified F-task to lean on. But then again, all I need to do is flip back through the last few pages to remind me what I was focusing on over the last few days and get me back on track. I haven't really had a series of stressful days like that since starting this new system, so I am not sure how it will hold out.
Like I said earlier, I think it's fascinating that we are all trying to solve this same problem -- maintain flexibility and intuition and freedom but still find a way to sustain continued focus on key tasks.
On noticing the title of this thread, <<reducing resistance for individual tasks causes WIP and misalignment to increase>>, it makes me think we are on the right track. Too-frequent cycling through a lot of older tasks that are not currently moving really does cause WIP to increase -- it prompts a seedbed approach rather than a focused-effort approach. So trying to find a way to reduce the frequency of exposure to the dormant tasks is important, so you can cycle through the current tasks that have momentum. But for the sake of completeness and closure, it's still seems like it should be important to review the dormant tasks systematically -- even if less frequently. I wonder if my "review during downtime" is systematic enough to give that sense of closure and completeness.
January 16, 2019 at 6:23 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
"For some reason, whenever I set some rule to focus on a specific task, I am almost guaranteed to work on anything BUT that task. For example, blocking an hour on my calendar to work on a specific task - it just doesn't work for me."
Yes, me too! Time-blocking is a total non-starter. Scheduling *every* task on my calendar? Shoot me now!
SMEMA has been my only exception to this. For some reason, that little three-task commitment window, combined with the knowledge that I can do as *small* an amount of work as I care to, and it has *no* relation to scheduled time, makes it all okay. I easily write down a highly resisted task in the 2nd or 3rd slot, because I know I won't need to work on it quite yet (yes, my time horizon is *that* short!), and then I reach it thinking, "Oh, man. Did I really commit to *that*?" but also I inexplicably feel a sense of satisfaction about finally getting to it and a sense of lightness about how little I have to do to be able to say that I worked on it. I do a pathetic three-minute sub-sub-sub-task, and THEN the magic happens: I'm really not a pathetic person, and I have achieved many great things (as long as other people were involved in the priorities and deadlines), so I take that budding sense of pride that I actually got started on this thing, and I write it down as the new middle task of the next SMEMA three, again tricked into thinking that I don't really have to do it yet. After a few laughably small increments, I find myself inside a two-hour session of real Czechoslovakian Flow.
SMEMA itself, though, was never comprehensive enough for me. Important/timely things did *not* automatically pop into my mind at the right time to act on them without a Long List. SMEMA does tire me out, too. I tended to use it for about half a day and then revert to a free-for-all, but I always looked forward to it the next day.
I regard the F-task method as a more comprehensive, Long-List form of flow-inducing SMEMA. It would be neat if there were something universal about that, but I realize it is a very personal perception.
"For some reason, whenever I set some rule to focus on a specific task, I am almost guaranteed to work on anything BUT that task. For example, blocking an hour on my calendar to work on a specific task - it just doesn't work for me."
Yes, me too! Time-blocking is a total non-starter. Scheduling *every* task on my calendar? Shoot me now!
SMEMA has been my only exception to this. For some reason, that little three-task commitment window, combined with the knowledge that I can do as *small* an amount of work as I care to, and it has *no* relation to scheduled time, makes it all okay. I easily write down a highly resisted task in the 2nd or 3rd slot, because I know I won't need to work on it quite yet (yes, my time horizon is *that* short!), and then I reach it thinking, "Oh, man. Did I really commit to *that*?" but also I inexplicably feel a sense of satisfaction about finally getting to it and a sense of lightness about how little I have to do to be able to say that I worked on it. I do a pathetic three-minute sub-sub-sub-task, and THEN the magic happens: I'm really not a pathetic person, and I have achieved many great things (as long as other people were involved in the priorities and deadlines), so I take that budding sense of pride that I actually got started on this thing, and I write it down as the new middle task of the next SMEMA three, again tricked into thinking that I don't really have to do it yet. After a few laughably small increments, I find myself inside a two-hour session of real Czechoslovakian Flow.
SMEMA itself, though, was never comprehensive enough for me. Important/timely things did *not* automatically pop into my mind at the right time to act on them without a Long List. SMEMA does tire me out, too. I tended to use it for about half a day and then revert to a free-for-all, but I always looked forward to it the next day.
I regard the F-task method as a more comprehensive, Long-List form of flow-inducing SMEMA. It would be neat if there were something universal about that, but I realize it is a very personal perception.
January 16, 2019 at 17:02 |
Bernie
Bernie
DIT had the concept of the MIT -- Most Important Thing. It automatically went on the first line of every day's page, and got attention every day.
I find frequent checking of the Long List doesn't work. I check it weekly, being very careful to copy anything that needs attention during the week to the Week Page, then ignore it unless I'm resisting everything on the Week Page. Doing something on any project is better than nothing at all.
Daily attention to the MIT really makes a difference. It keeps the flow going. Every teacher I've seen, including math, reading, music, meditation, driving, and exercise all say a tiny bit every day works better than a large amount less often. It builds the habit of doing. It keeps flow. It increases interest and curiosity for the next session. It fights resistance. It builds muscle and mental memory better. It lets you focus on it since you aren't bored.
Even if all you do is 2 minutes before going to bed, it reinforces that you are a person who does the MIT.
+++
I find frequent visits to the long list doesn't work. Once a week, when I'm deciding what to focus on for the week and making sure things don't fall through the cracks, and also when looking for something random to do, is about right. So, yeah, even though I maintain a long list, I don't use a long list system.
SMEMA and Randomizer are good once I know the constraints for the day and week.
If I planned email for today and groceries tomorrow, that isn't set in stone. Most weeks, it doesn't matter which I do today, as long as I do something. If a storm is coming in, and I know I can't go an extra day without shopping, groceries wins, unless I promised child an empty house tomorrow. The plan isn't
+++
Geek & Sundry has a series on the history of Dungeons and Dragons. At one point, TSR's contract with Random House said TSR would print the books and send them to RH. RH would pay for the books, no limit, but, if they weren't sold, RH would return them and ask for their money back. All RH had to lose was shelf space. TSR, however, fell victim to their own optimism. WIP (books ready to be sold) didn't match demand.
I find frequent checking of the Long List doesn't work. I check it weekly, being very careful to copy anything that needs attention during the week to the Week Page, then ignore it unless I'm resisting everything on the Week Page. Doing something on any project is better than nothing at all.
Daily attention to the MIT really makes a difference. It keeps the flow going. Every teacher I've seen, including math, reading, music, meditation, driving, and exercise all say a tiny bit every day works better than a large amount less often. It builds the habit of doing. It keeps flow. It increases interest and curiosity for the next session. It fights resistance. It builds muscle and mental memory better. It lets you focus on it since you aren't bored.
Even if all you do is 2 minutes before going to bed, it reinforces that you are a person who does the MIT.
+++
I find frequent visits to the long list doesn't work. Once a week, when I'm deciding what to focus on for the week and making sure things don't fall through the cracks, and also when looking for something random to do, is about right. So, yeah, even though I maintain a long list, I don't use a long list system.
SMEMA and Randomizer are good once I know the constraints for the day and week.
If I planned email for today and groceries tomorrow, that isn't set in stone. Most weeks, it doesn't matter which I do today, as long as I do something. If a storm is coming in, and I know I can't go an extra day without shopping, groceries wins, unless I promised child an empty house tomorrow. The plan isn't
+++
Geek & Sundry has a series on the history of Dungeons and Dragons. At one point, TSR's contract with Random House said TSR would print the books and send them to RH. RH would pay for the books, no limit, but, if they weren't sold, RH would return them and ask for their money back. All RH had to lose was shelf space. TSR, however, fell victim to their own optimism. WIP (books ready to be sold) didn't match demand.
January 17, 2019 at 21:14 |
Cricket
Cricket
I've been away for six and a half weeks in Australia and you all seem to have been getting on perfectly well without me.
This has been a fascinating discussion and I did read every word, but commenting was just too much like hard work on a phone with very bad internet connections. So I decided to let you get on with it.
Now I'm back though...
This has been a fascinating discussion and I did read every word, but commenting was just too much like hard work on a phone with very bad internet connections. So I decided to let you get on with it.
Now I'm back though...
January 18, 2019 at 11:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Welcome back, Mark!
January 18, 2019 at 18:38 |
Bernie
Bernie
Welocme back to the realm of the connected!
January 18, 2019 at 21:29 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Welcome back, Mark! You were missed!! I hope you had a great time in Australia.
January 26, 2019 at 23:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
OK, I decided to try again with this topic. Let me try it from a logical perspective instead of using an analogy.
Here is how Little and Often works for me. I have a bunch of tasks on my list. I have not started on any of them. Thus each task represents a potential time commitment, but who knows whether it's a hard commitment, a soft commitment, or something spurious that will be deleted. Time will tell.
At this point WIP=0, since nothing has been started.
So I scan through and something stands out. I dot it. Now WIP=1
I work on it for awhile, then decide to stop without finishing. I re-enter the task at the end of the list. Since it is unfinished work, WIP=1 still.
I scan the list and something else stands out. I dot it. Now WIP=2. Let's say it's a recurring item like email. So I work for awhile then stop, and re-enter the task at the end of the list. I won't count these items as "unfinished", since they are recurring. Maybe we could argue about this point, but for now let's keep it simple and not count them. So WIP goes back to 1.
I scan the list and something else stands out. I dot it. WIP=2. I get it finished and cross it off. WIP=1.
I scan the list and something else stands out. I dot it. WIP=2. I stop without finishing and re-enter it. WIP stays at 2.
As new items "stand out", get worked in "little and often" fashion, and are left unfinished, WIP will continue to increase.
Meanwhile I may (or may not) have scanned over the first items that I had worked on and left unfinished. Presumably every time I see them, it causes my unconscious mind to keep working away at them a little more. Eventually they will stand out again. And eventually they will be finished and WIP will drop by 1 each time one of these is finished (or deleted).
In other words, "Little and often" guarantees that WIP will increase, because I am starting new things and stopping before they are finished. That's the definition of "little and often".
With a manageable workload, where one's list stabilizes at some level, then on average I would expect the number of new tasks you are starting (and then leaving unfinished) will approximately balance out the number of old unfinished tasks that you finally do finish (or drop). So, just as the list stabilizes at some level, so does the WIP. For some this might be at say ~50 tasks total, and maybe ~5-10 WIP items. For others the numbers could be higher or lower.
So I would argue that "reducing resistance for individual tasks causes WIP to increase" is a simple and logical outcome of "little and often". There is no resistance, so you naturally take on more work as your intuition guides you, through the standing out process. WIP increases naturally till you reach some maximum level that is a relatively stable fraction of your total list size.
Perhaps the "spinning plates" phenomenon is going on here, behind the scenes. As the WIP increases, you need to keep moving forward with each task or it will fall and break. You already sense this intuitively, so these dynamics affect the "standing out" process, and help the total WIP establish a natural limit that is within your capacity to handle easily. Some plates might drop but most of the time it's easy to stay up with it, just following "little and often" and "standing out".
This is how the process has worked for me during more stable periods of my life and work. Those periods have been relatively rare, but they have been gloriously productive and focused and relaxing times, when using almost any of Mark's long-list systems. Great flow, engagement, focus, and outcomes.
Even in these relatively calm times, there has always been more work than I could really handle, and priorities are never quite clear when the work arrives. But the beauty of these systems is that you don't need any "a priori" prioritization. You let the priorities emerge as you work the list. The important stuff just gets done naturally, and the unimportant stuff drops away -- sometimes after you've worked on it a bit but then it stalls -- sometimes even before you've started.
There is often misalignment between tasks, and this increases as WIP increases. But the system handles this beautifully, and sorts everything out just by following the "standing out" process, as long as you can continue cycling through the list.
OK, so I think it's clear that these effects exist even when the work is roughly balanced to your capacity. These effects exist, but they aren't really a problem.