Discussion Forum > Could the improved AF2 variants be the best Long List systems?
To me important factors of a system are Responsiveness and Focus. I want to be able to respond quickly to things that want a quick response, and I want to be able to focus on big important things by coming back to an item over and over.
X-Trapping seems to work against both of these by diverting your attention across a variety of older tasks on the page where you're trapped. This seems to apply to these AF2 variants, and even more so to AF1.
I do like the attenuation bonus that comes with dating stuff.
X-Trapping seems to work against both of these by diverting your attention across a variety of older tasks on the page where you're trapped. This seems to apply to these AF2 variants, and even more so to AF1.
I do like the attenuation bonus that comes with dating stuff.
January 1, 2019 at 16:49 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Happy New Year, Alan!
Alan Baljeu: "To me important factors of a system are Responsiveness and Focus. I want to be able to respond quickly to things that want a quick response, and I want to be able to focus on big important things by coming back to an item over and over. "
I am a bit confused. You do realize that AF2's algorithm is to go over and over stuff because you always start at the end right? Even in X-trapping AF2 (I like that name!) that happens, and in my practice XTAF2 stays in a page/date only as long as it needs to be. And yet, if I ever need a task to be done quite urgently, I know I can just write it at the end of list, dot it, and resume the usual algorithm from there.
"X-Trapping seems to work against both of these by diverting your attention across a variety of older tasks on the page where you're trapped. This seems to apply to these AF2 variants, and even more so to AF1."
XTAF2 actually does the exact opposite. I have a less feeling of urgent unease to get to the end of the list compared to SS and AF1 variants because I had just been there and done all I could there before going to the older stuff.
Now, if I am to compare "page-trapping" vs "date-trapping" AF2 then I would say DTAF2 is more Focused and Responsive, since as I noted before pages are an artificial way of dividing things, while dividing by dates is more natural. You don't have to go back an entire page, you only have to go back to the beginning of that day you are trapped in, and being in the same day actually gives context to the tasks.
Alan Baljeu: "To me important factors of a system are Responsiveness and Focus. I want to be able to respond quickly to things that want a quick response, and I want to be able to focus on big important things by coming back to an item over and over. "
I am a bit confused. You do realize that AF2's algorithm is to go over and over stuff because you always start at the end right? Even in X-trapping AF2 (I like that name!) that happens, and in my practice XTAF2 stays in a page/date only as long as it needs to be. And yet, if I ever need a task to be done quite urgently, I know I can just write it at the end of list, dot it, and resume the usual algorithm from there.
"X-Trapping seems to work against both of these by diverting your attention across a variety of older tasks on the page where you're trapped. This seems to apply to these AF2 variants, and even more so to AF1."
XTAF2 actually does the exact opposite. I have a less feeling of urgent unease to get to the end of the list compared to SS and AF1 variants because I had just been there and done all I could there before going to the older stuff.
Now, if I am to compare "page-trapping" vs "date-trapping" AF2 then I would say DTAF2 is more Focused and Responsive, since as I noted before pages are an artificial way of dividing things, while dividing by dates is more natural. You don't have to go back an entire page, you only have to go back to the beginning of that day you are trapped in, and being in the same day actually gives context to the tasks.
January 1, 2019 at 17:44 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
Why not taking today’s tasks and the trap day’s tasks as one combined two day trap or - maybe a more appealing wording - as one two-day long focus area?
To be more clear:
1. You start your scanning at the end of the list upwards. That‘s where you restart every time you have worked on a task. True AF2-style!
2. If you don‘t find any task standing out that was entered today, you leave the area of the today tasks and jump to the task that was last entered on the current trap day. From there you scan further up.
Definition of „current trap day“: Day, on which the most recently actioned task of all tasks that where NOT entered today is located. You are „trapped“ there insofar as the last entered task of this day will be your target for the jump mentioned in step 2 as long as you find a task standing out on that day. Otherwise you would move up just as in Mark‘s and nuntym‘s variants, until you find a task standing out, thereby making another day the „current trap day“
This would enable „little and often“ for the older tasks as well while keeping the advantages you mention.
The additional advantages concerning the handling of urgent tasks are obvious: more returns to the end of the list, where these urgent tasks are entered.
I‘m going to give this a try.
Why not taking today’s tasks and the trap day’s tasks as one combined two day trap or - maybe a more appealing wording - as one two-day long focus area?
To be more clear:
1. You start your scanning at the end of the list upwards. That‘s where you restart every time you have worked on a task. True AF2-style!
2. If you don‘t find any task standing out that was entered today, you leave the area of the today tasks and jump to the task that was last entered on the current trap day. From there you scan further up.
Definition of „current trap day“: Day, on which the most recently actioned task of all tasks that where NOT entered today is located. You are „trapped“ there insofar as the last entered task of this day will be your target for the jump mentioned in step 2 as long as you find a task standing out on that day. Otherwise you would move up just as in Mark‘s and nuntym‘s variants, until you find a task standing out, thereby making another day the „current trap day“
This would enable „little and often“ for the older tasks as well while keeping the advantages you mention.
The additional advantages concerning the handling of urgent tasks are obvious: more returns to the end of the list, where these urgent tasks are entered.
I‘m going to give this a try.
January 1, 2019 at 21:55 |
Laby
Laby
@Laby: That sounds....way too much page flipping.
It does sound interesting, though! I'm eager to hear your findings after you've given it a spin.
It does sound interesting, though! I'm eager to hear your findings after you've given it a spin.
January 1, 2019 at 22:44 |
nuntym
nuntym
<<And yet, if I ever need a task to be done quite urgently, I know I can just write it at the end of list, dot it, and resume the usual algorithm from there.>>
I did not realize this was in here. But the case I'm talking about is not abiut conventionally urgent tasks, but about large high priority (large high-value) tasks which I could legitimately spend 8 hours on, but for 2 things: I can focus better if I take breaks, and there are other things that deserve some attention.
Except FV variants, I don't see any of the primary systems deliver on this, but systems that loop over anything that doesn't include the key tasks are contrary to the goal.
I did not realize this was in here. But the case I'm talking about is not abiut conventionally urgent tasks, but about large high priority (large high-value) tasks which I could legitimately spend 8 hours on, but for 2 things: I can focus better if I take breaks, and there are other things that deserve some attention.
Except FV variants, I don't see any of the primary systems deliver on this, but systems that loop over anything that doesn't include the key tasks are contrary to the goal.
January 2, 2019 at 13:37 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I am still using and loving AF2rev. I don't have the problems others have. I often scroll upwards through the list at a pretty fast clip, so I circle around to the last page again quickly enough. Also if I am thinking about urgent items on the last page and something stands out on an earlier page, I do a little of it, send it to the end of the list and continue backwards until I get back to the last page.
On many days i scan through the list multiple times but do most of my work on the last page.
On many days i scan through the list multiple times but do most of my work on the last page.
January 2, 2019 at 14:57 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
I have the same results as vegheadjones with DTAF2: it can be very fast going around the list. I think the reverse direction compared to the SS and AF1 variants affects that speed.
Also, the FV systems have a diminishing return for me the longer I work on tasks, which I called somewhere else as "spoilage", wherein the tasks I dotted before would gradually lose importance for me as time goes on, making me cross out and rewrite them as I choose new tasks to replace them. In that regards at least in my experience DTAF is better and actually faster than the FV systems.
Also, the FV systems have a diminishing return for me the longer I work on tasks, which I called somewhere else as "spoilage", wherein the tasks I dotted before would gradually lose importance for me as time goes on, making me cross out and rewrite them as I choose new tasks to replace them. In that regards at least in my experience DTAF is better and actually faster than the FV systems.
January 6, 2019 at 22:40 |
nuntym
nuntym
I’ve lost track of all the variants! LOL. It makes it really hard to follow the discussion!
January 7, 2019 at 2:19 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I propose Page Trapping on the open page, the last page which is not yet filled. Once you get past that page, Simply Scan backward through the rest of the list.
If you keep a few types of pages, such as AF4's New/Unfinished/Recurring, use Page Trapping on any type of open page and no trapping on any type of closed page.
If you can't give up the trapping, use Day Trapping on the closed pages.
Seraphim,
Your desire for limited WIP might be addressed by an Unfinished page type with a limit on # tasks or projects.
If you keep a few types of pages, such as AF4's New/Unfinished/Recurring, use Page Trapping on any type of open page and no trapping on any type of closed page.
If you can't give up the trapping, use Day Trapping on the closed pages.
Seraphim,
Your desire for limited WIP might be addressed by an Unfinished page type with a limit on # tasks or projects.
January 10, 2019 at 19:11 |
Bernie
Bernie
I just noticed Alan's comment about Focus and Responsiveness (above). I think he's raised a crucial point. Both of these are required to get the outcomes we want. But it's huge problem because there's a fundamental conflict between them. It goes like this.
To get the outcomes we want, we need to have FOCUS and we need to have RESPONSIVENESS. To have focus, we need to resist taking on new work. To have responsiveness, we need to accept new work. That's the basic conflict.
To get the outcomes we want, we need to be able to apply sustained focus to our work. There are many reasons for this. For example:
-- Large, difficult tasks need sustained, repeated focus (even if it comes in "little and often" doses).
-- If we diffuse our focus over many projects, we delay the achievement of the outcome for all of them.
-- By focusing on fewer projects, we complete them all faster, and get the desired outcome faster. Faster time to value. MUCH faster.
-- Delaying projects often results in them never being completed at all -- which means all the effort we put into them was wasted.
-- The best way to get lots of great work completed is to get oneself into a "flow" state. Flow requires focus, minimal interruptions.
-- In short, focus allows us to GET STUFF COMPLETED.
To get the outcomes we want, we need to be able to respond to new needs that arise:
-- Circumstances change. New opportunities arise. New threats arise.
-- New knowledge and information changes our course of action.--
-- Urgent needs arise, some of them emergencies.
-- In short, responsiveness allows us to WORK ON THE RIGHT THINGS AT THE RIGHT TIME.
Here is where the conflict becomes stark:
-- To be able to apply sustained focus, we should reduce taking on new work.
-- To be able to respond to new needs, we should be able to accept new work whenever we feel the need.
Some more examples:
-- Focus says NO to new tasks. Responsiveness says YES to new tasks.
-- Focus likes closed lists. Responsiveness likes open lists.
-- Focus requires limited WIP. Responsiveness pushes against WIP limits.
-- Focus says "Finish what you start". Responsiveness says "What's the delay, just get things moving"
-- Focus says "Meet your existing commitments". Responsiveness says "Be open to change."
I think this is the core problem of time management - trying to find a way to deal with this conflict effectively.
It's also the core problem of project management, especially in chaotic environments. For example, Agile software development tries to address the conflict by having short periods of intense focus ("sprints"), and after each sprint we re-assess our situation and pivot as needed to ensure we are on track to get the targeted outcomes. Within each sprint: TOTAL FOCUS on the committed work. Between each sprint: RESPOND by assessing and pivoting. This can be very effective but has some problems -- such as, the delivery of lots of little bits of work that don't necessarily align to larger, more impactful outcomes.
Most time management methods try to find a balance or compromise between the two poles. They don't really address the conflict, and that eventually results in "lose/lose" -- you are never really focused, and never really responsive.
But when I'm in the sweet spot with one of Mark's systems, somehow I don't feel any conflict. The systems enable our intuition easily to find the right balance. But when any of the systems start to go wrong, it's always because one pole is getting too much emphasis at the expense of the other.
For example, a common complaint about AF1 was it didn't respond well to urgent needs. But it enabled incredible focus. As Mark wrote, "working the list resulted in an almost meditative state in which resistance and procrastination seemed to melt away and the task of the moment became for that moment the focus of one's universe." http://lifehacker.com/5704856/the-autofocus-productivity-method-stop-maintaining-to-do-lists-and-start-getting-stuff-done
With Simple Scanning, when the list remains small enough to allow frequent cycling, there's no conflict, my intuition finds the right path. But as the list grows longer, I start to lose focus. There are too many possible tasks demanding a response.
I've been trying to really understand how it is that these systems are able to resolve the conflict so easily when they are in that "sweet spot". There *is* a fundamental conflict - but it doesn't feel that way at all when I am in a good flow with any of these systems. What are the dynamics that make this possible?
In my posts on "intuition for the whole", I was trying to explore how we can adjust our overall workload and emphasis to get the right focus and right responsiveness, as long as we are able to maintain an overall intuition for our whole context. There seem to be two possible methods for this: (1) frequent cycling through a long list, or (2) use No-List. I am guessing that this "intuition for the whole" is a key to eliminating the core conflict. I just can't put all the pieces together. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725827
To get the outcomes we want, we need to have FOCUS and we need to have RESPONSIVENESS. To have focus, we need to resist taking on new work. To have responsiveness, we need to accept new work. That's the basic conflict.
To get the outcomes we want, we need to be able to apply sustained focus to our work. There are many reasons for this. For example:
-- Large, difficult tasks need sustained, repeated focus (even if it comes in "little and often" doses).
-- If we diffuse our focus over many projects, we delay the achievement of the outcome for all of them.
-- By focusing on fewer projects, we complete them all faster, and get the desired outcome faster. Faster time to value. MUCH faster.
-- Delaying projects often results in them never being completed at all -- which means all the effort we put into them was wasted.
-- The best way to get lots of great work completed is to get oneself into a "flow" state. Flow requires focus, minimal interruptions.
-- In short, focus allows us to GET STUFF COMPLETED.
To get the outcomes we want, we need to be able to respond to new needs that arise:
-- Circumstances change. New opportunities arise. New threats arise.
-- New knowledge and information changes our course of action.--
-- Urgent needs arise, some of them emergencies.
-- In short, responsiveness allows us to WORK ON THE RIGHT THINGS AT THE RIGHT TIME.
Here is where the conflict becomes stark:
-- To be able to apply sustained focus, we should reduce taking on new work.
-- To be able to respond to new needs, we should be able to accept new work whenever we feel the need.
Some more examples:
-- Focus says NO to new tasks. Responsiveness says YES to new tasks.
-- Focus likes closed lists. Responsiveness likes open lists.
-- Focus requires limited WIP. Responsiveness pushes against WIP limits.
-- Focus says "Finish what you start". Responsiveness says "What's the delay, just get things moving"
-- Focus says "Meet your existing commitments". Responsiveness says "Be open to change."
I think this is the core problem of time management - trying to find a way to deal with this conflict effectively.
It's also the core problem of project management, especially in chaotic environments. For example, Agile software development tries to address the conflict by having short periods of intense focus ("sprints"), and after each sprint we re-assess our situation and pivot as needed to ensure we are on track to get the targeted outcomes. Within each sprint: TOTAL FOCUS on the committed work. Between each sprint: RESPOND by assessing and pivoting. This can be very effective but has some problems -- such as, the delivery of lots of little bits of work that don't necessarily align to larger, more impactful outcomes.
Most time management methods try to find a balance or compromise between the two poles. They don't really address the conflict, and that eventually results in "lose/lose" -- you are never really focused, and never really responsive.
But when I'm in the sweet spot with one of Mark's systems, somehow I don't feel any conflict. The systems enable our intuition easily to find the right balance. But when any of the systems start to go wrong, it's always because one pole is getting too much emphasis at the expense of the other.
For example, a common complaint about AF1 was it didn't respond well to urgent needs. But it enabled incredible focus. As Mark wrote, "working the list resulted in an almost meditative state in which resistance and procrastination seemed to melt away and the task of the moment became for that moment the focus of one's universe." http://lifehacker.com/5704856/the-autofocus-productivity-method-stop-maintaining-to-do-lists-and-start-getting-stuff-done
With Simple Scanning, when the list remains small enough to allow frequent cycling, there's no conflict, my intuition finds the right path. But as the list grows longer, I start to lose focus. There are too many possible tasks demanding a response.
I've been trying to really understand how it is that these systems are able to resolve the conflict so easily when they are in that "sweet spot". There *is* a fundamental conflict - but it doesn't feel that way at all when I am in a good flow with any of these systems. What are the dynamics that make this possible?
In my posts on "intuition for the whole", I was trying to explore how we can adjust our overall workload and emphasis to get the right focus and right responsiveness, as long as we are able to maintain an overall intuition for our whole context. There seem to be two possible methods for this: (1) frequent cycling through a long list, or (2) use No-List. I am guessing that this "intuition for the whole" is a key to eliminating the core conflict. I just can't put all the pieces together. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725827
January 14, 2019 at 5:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
That discourse seems very incisive, on the conflict between focus and response. I find myself following every line, until you mentioned AF1. The thing about AF1 is that it gets you focused in the sense of continually moving things forward, keeping your mind on one thing at a time. This is excellent Flow. But this is not sufficient to cover my definition of Focus.
What I demand of a system is that it supports me repeatedly spending significant focused time, on the currently most critical project. AF1 does the opposite of that. It spreads time across all your pages. I suppose if one page has multiple related tasks that would be a form of focus to do that batch, but if none of those are the critical task, I neither want to do nor dismiss them now.
I claim we want maximum effectiveness in the long term. This must include working on the things that are most valuable, to the extent that more work continues to produce that value. At various points, working on a thing loses its impetus, either because there's nothing more needed now, or because we are running out of steam on it, or because some other thing has become more urgent, and so we switch.
What I demand of a system is that it supports me repeatedly spending significant focused time, on the currently most critical project. AF1 does the opposite of that. It spreads time across all your pages. I suppose if one page has multiple related tasks that would be a form of focus to do that batch, but if none of those are the critical task, I neither want to do nor dismiss them now.
I claim we want maximum effectiveness in the long term. This must include working on the things that are most valuable, to the extent that more work continues to produce that value. At various points, working on a thing loses its impetus, either because there's nothing more needed now, or because we are running out of steam on it, or because some other thing has become more urgent, and so we switch.
January 14, 2019 at 15:59 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I took on a Big project in October. The way I kept focused on it was to start a new notebook and keep the Big project at the front with long list part way into the book. Worked great until I slipped a couple of smaller projects in between. I looked at Big project first everyday and it was all in one place. Bits of it showed up on long list, but everything I needed was in Big project area. Worked great. Thinking of how I will duplicate the idea with out buying another notebook.
Alan - Curious about how you are handling this digitally?
Alan - Curious about how you are handling this digitally?
January 14, 2019 at 17:02 |
Erin
Erin
Alan Baljeu -
<< The thing about AF1 is that it gets you focused in the sense of continually moving things forward, keeping your mind on one thing at a time. This is excellent Flow. But this is not sufficient to cover my definition of Focus. >>
I agree with you about this not being sufficient. My main problem personally with AF1 wasn't the lack of responsiveness, but too much focus on the wrong things. It created a flow state but not always on the stuff that mattered most.
<< What I demand of a system is that it supports me repeatedly spending significant focused time, on the currently most critical project. >>
Yes, I agree. But it also needs to allow you to easily respond to other things that come up, without disrupting your focus on the main things.
So I guess I didn't capture the real conflict in AF1 very well. Let me try again. :-) AF1 encourages many little seeds to grow -- you are responding to many emerging needs -- taking you away from the big things that need more sustained focus. AF1 also encourages you to cycle through pages of older things (focus), preventing you from dealing quickly with urgent things (responsiveness). So the conflict is still clearly embedded in AF1 -- just not in such a simple maner as I first described. The incredible local-optima focus it produces can actually block focus on the "main things" and also block responsiveness to the newest items.
<< I claim we want maximum effectiveness in the long term. This must include working on the things that are most valuable, to the extent that more work continues to produce that value. At various points, working on a thing loses its impetus, either because there's nothing more needed now, or because we are running out of steam on it, or because some other thing has become more urgent, and so we switch. >>
Yes, and switching (by definition) increases WIP and thus reduces focus. A while ago I started trying to push just a little harder to keep the focus going - to bring things closer to completion. It was amazing how often the impetus would return. Blockers would get unblocked. I'd get things completed faster. And as a side benefit, there are fewer and fewer WIP items, fewer loose threads to keep track of.
And a side benefit of THAT: when focus items are completed faster, it actually gives me more time and attention to respond to new things. I've been pondering this a lot... Is that the direction to look to eliminate the conflict? To get the best outcomes, we need to respond at the right time to the right things. To respond to the right things at the right time, we need to be able to focus on things till they are done. ???? In other words, focus must be subordinated to responsiveness. This lines up with Covey's 2nd and 3rd habits -- (2) Start with the end in mind (make sure you ladder is leaning against the correct wall). (3) First things first (focus your efforts in the right way). It also seems to give a hint of resolving other parts of the conflict.
<< The thing about AF1 is that it gets you focused in the sense of continually moving things forward, keeping your mind on one thing at a time. This is excellent Flow. But this is not sufficient to cover my definition of Focus. >>
I agree with you about this not being sufficient. My main problem personally with AF1 wasn't the lack of responsiveness, but too much focus on the wrong things. It created a flow state but not always on the stuff that mattered most.
<< What I demand of a system is that it supports me repeatedly spending significant focused time, on the currently most critical project. >>
Yes, I agree. But it also needs to allow you to easily respond to other things that come up, without disrupting your focus on the main things.
So I guess I didn't capture the real conflict in AF1 very well. Let me try again. :-) AF1 encourages many little seeds to grow -- you are responding to many emerging needs -- taking you away from the big things that need more sustained focus. AF1 also encourages you to cycle through pages of older things (focus), preventing you from dealing quickly with urgent things (responsiveness). So the conflict is still clearly embedded in AF1 -- just not in such a simple maner as I first described. The incredible local-optima focus it produces can actually block focus on the "main things" and also block responsiveness to the newest items.
<< I claim we want maximum effectiveness in the long term. This must include working on the things that are most valuable, to the extent that more work continues to produce that value. At various points, working on a thing loses its impetus, either because there's nothing more needed now, or because we are running out of steam on it, or because some other thing has become more urgent, and so we switch. >>
Yes, and switching (by definition) increases WIP and thus reduces focus. A while ago I started trying to push just a little harder to keep the focus going - to bring things closer to completion. It was amazing how often the impetus would return. Blockers would get unblocked. I'd get things completed faster. And as a side benefit, there are fewer and fewer WIP items, fewer loose threads to keep track of.
And a side benefit of THAT: when focus items are completed faster, it actually gives me more time and attention to respond to new things. I've been pondering this a lot... Is that the direction to look to eliminate the conflict? To get the best outcomes, we need to respond at the right time to the right things. To respond to the right things at the right time, we need to be able to focus on things till they are done. ???? In other words, focus must be subordinated to responsiveness. This lines up with Covey's 2nd and 3rd habits -- (2) Start with the end in mind (make sure you ladder is leaning against the correct wall). (3) First things first (focus your efforts in the right way). It also seems to give a hint of resolving other parts of the conflict.
January 14, 2019 at 19:05 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
You could always FOCUS on one thing by keeping it at the end of your list, while RESPONDing to other items in between those focus sessions. ;)
Remember the mechanic in DIT? He works on one car at a time, not haphazardly on part of this car and then part of that car. Presumably, he periodically takes breaks to answer the phone or use the bathroom or file some paperwork, and then he resumes work on the same car, not a randomly different one that stood out.
Remember the mechanic in DIT? He works on one car at a time, not haphazardly on part of this car and then part of that car. Presumably, he periodically takes breaks to answer the phone or use the bathroom or file some paperwork, and then he resumes work on the same car, not a randomly different one that stood out.
January 14, 2019 at 19:36 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie --
It's a great model, and nice that your No-List method helped you identify it for you in your personal work, and that you've specifically incorporated it into your current method. I think that's great!
Mark gives a great illustration in DIT. It goes back even further, Peter Drucker discusses it in The Effective Executive ((C) 1967).
It becomes a more difficult (and interesting) problem when the current focus task and the new incoming demands/opportunities are similar in quality / size / scope / impact. The mechanic needed to respond to many requests to repair cars. He focused on one car at a time, so that his overall responsiveness to his customers was optimized and predictable. If he scattered his focus, his overall responsiveness would plummet. This is exactly the point of Mark's description.
Actually I think this is another confirmation of the idea that focus should be subordinated to responsiveness. In other words, we need to focus so that we can be responsive. It's not the other way around. I think the solution to eliminate the conflict lies in this direction.
It's a great model, and nice that your No-List method helped you identify it for you in your personal work, and that you've specifically incorporated it into your current method. I think that's great!
Mark gives a great illustration in DIT. It goes back even further, Peter Drucker discusses it in The Effective Executive ((C) 1967).
It becomes a more difficult (and interesting) problem when the current focus task and the new incoming demands/opportunities are similar in quality / size / scope / impact. The mechanic needed to respond to many requests to repair cars. He focused on one car at a time, so that his overall responsiveness to his customers was optimized and predictable. If he scattered his focus, his overall responsiveness would plummet. This is exactly the point of Mark's description.
Actually I think this is another confirmation of the idea that focus should be subordinated to responsiveness. In other words, we need to focus so that we can be responsive. It's not the other way around. I think the solution to eliminate the conflict lies in this direction.
January 15, 2019 at 0:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Erin, my digital system regarding bigger projects looks like this:
I'm using the outline program, DynaList. One outline hosts my List which, refer to Seraphim's No-List-Long-List description linked above for explanation. Each day gets a new virtual page.
Bigger projects, which I scope to about 10-40 hours' size, and I would simply name such a project in my List.
In a separate outline I would record details of the project, including requirements, tasks (requirements are not tasks), working notes. If I need more than text, I link to OneNote with a more multimedia document writing.
Seraphim,
I think the factory metaphor works here. Imagine having two production lines. In one line you keep busy doing your main project, producing regularly. The other line is idle. (And maybe not a line but a work cell.) You put in all the special custom rush orders from your customer and can produce output extremely quickly because it's always available.
Maybe not optimally efficient in an actual factory, but when it's you alone working all the stations, this feels very effective. Maximally responsive and strongly focused.
I'm using the outline program, DynaList. One outline hosts my List which, refer to Seraphim's No-List-Long-List description linked above for explanation. Each day gets a new virtual page.
Bigger projects, which I scope to about 10-40 hours' size, and I would simply name such a project in my List.
In a separate outline I would record details of the project, including requirements, tasks (requirements are not tasks), working notes. If I need more than text, I link to OneNote with a more multimedia document writing.
Seraphim,
I think the factory metaphor works here. Imagine having two production lines. In one line you keep busy doing your main project, producing regularly. The other line is idle. (And maybe not a line but a work cell.) You put in all the special custom rush orders from your customer and can produce output extremely quickly because it's always available.
Maybe not optimally efficient in an actual factory, but when it's you alone working all the stations, this feels very effective. Maximally responsive and strongly focused.
January 15, 2019 at 3:55 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu -
<< I think the factory metaphor works here. Imagine having two production lines. In one line you keep busy doing your main project, producing regularly. The other line is idle. (And maybe not a line but a work cell.) You put in all the special custom rush orders from your customer and can produce output extremely quickly because it's always available. >>
SFv2 - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1317396
<< Maybe not optimally efficient in an actual factory, but when it's you alone working all the stations, this feels very effective. Maximally responsive and strongly focused. >>
Yes, SFv2 was like that. Until the special custom rush orders got to be too many and overwhelmed both lines. :-)
The same thing can happen with kanban - you can have an Expedite row for special tasks that need urgent attention. But it's easy to abuse it if you have lots of urgency in the environment.
It actually works just fine if you use the different rows and WIP limits as diagnostic tools to help improve flow. But the kanban itself becomes an obstacle if one feels one has no choice but to adhere to the limits.
Hm, this leads me back to thinking about cognitive dissonance. When we think of our systems as RULES WE MUST FOLLOW and allow them to override our own insight and intuition, it triggers cognitive dissonance. We believe we must follow the rules. We therefore find ways to convince ourselves we are following the rules but are really abusing the rules. (Like calling stuff "urgent" and putting it into SFv2's second column just to make sure it gets some attention because column 1 is so slow it will languish and die there; or taking action on an AF1 page only for the sake of preventing dismissal; etc.) We hold in our heads two opposing beliefs -- that we are following the rules, and we are acting intuitively. That may be true in most systems most of the time. But eventually we hit situations where the system gets into conflict with our intuition and it triggers the cognitive dissonance. This usually causes us to double-down on our conflicting beliefs. It all stems from the idea of using rules as prescriptions.
On the other hand, if we use the rules as "thinking tools" or "diagnostic tools", then we are EXPECTING the rules to conflict with our intuition sometimes. And the cognitive dissonance just doesn't happen. With this approach, the rules exist only to help us learn and improve. We WELCOME the conflict, because it helps us learn and improve.
<< I think the factory metaphor works here. Imagine having two production lines. In one line you keep busy doing your main project, producing regularly. The other line is idle. (And maybe not a line but a work cell.) You put in all the special custom rush orders from your customer and can produce output extremely quickly because it's always available. >>
SFv2 - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1317396
<< Maybe not optimally efficient in an actual factory, but when it's you alone working all the stations, this feels very effective. Maximally responsive and strongly focused. >>
Yes, SFv2 was like that. Until the special custom rush orders got to be too many and overwhelmed both lines. :-)
The same thing can happen with kanban - you can have an Expedite row for special tasks that need urgent attention. But it's easy to abuse it if you have lots of urgency in the environment.
It actually works just fine if you use the different rows and WIP limits as diagnostic tools to help improve flow. But the kanban itself becomes an obstacle if one feels one has no choice but to adhere to the limits.
Hm, this leads me back to thinking about cognitive dissonance. When we think of our systems as RULES WE MUST FOLLOW and allow them to override our own insight and intuition, it triggers cognitive dissonance. We believe we must follow the rules. We therefore find ways to convince ourselves we are following the rules but are really abusing the rules. (Like calling stuff "urgent" and putting it into SFv2's second column just to make sure it gets some attention because column 1 is so slow it will languish and die there; or taking action on an AF1 page only for the sake of preventing dismissal; etc.) We hold in our heads two opposing beliefs -- that we are following the rules, and we are acting intuitively. That may be true in most systems most of the time. But eventually we hit situations where the system gets into conflict with our intuition and it triggers the cognitive dissonance. This usually causes us to double-down on our conflicting beliefs. It all stems from the idea of using rules as prescriptions.
On the other hand, if we use the rules as "thinking tools" or "diagnostic tools", then we are EXPECTING the rules to conflict with our intuition sometimes. And the cognitive dissonance just doesn't happen. With this approach, the rules exist only to help us learn and improve. We WELCOME the conflict, because it helps us learn and improve.
January 15, 2019 at 4:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
No, SF/2 is not a good match for the same reason AF1 does not offer Focus as I defined it. SF 1 had focus because you put your priorit item in column 2 and it went with you, but in SF2 you leave it behind. I’m not certain of this point as I found the system unusable. The rapidly filling second column was an issue, and the constant mental burden of deciding where to write every task just made the whole system crash very quickly.
Anyway, you talk about abusing the rules, but I think rather of allowing the rules to abuse you. If you know what needs doing and the rule tells you no, you are getting abused. Unlesd that NO is actually a good choice versus your own bad habit, in which case the rule is healthy.
Anyway, you talk about abusing the rules, but I think rather of allowing the rules to abuse you. If you know what needs doing and the rule tells you no, you are getting abused. Unlesd that NO is actually a good choice versus your own bad habit, in which case the rule is healthy.
January 15, 2019 at 14:32 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I meant that SFv2 is a pretty good approximation of your two-line production system. I wasn't advocating it as a good solution for achieving the kind of sustained focus we are talking about.
<< you talk about abusing the rules, but I think rather of allowing the rules to abuse you >>
That's a useful way to think about it!
<< you talk about abusing the rules, but I think rather of allowing the rules to abuse you >>
That's a useful way to think about it!
January 15, 2019 at 15:42 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Don Reinertsen: "The Logic of Flow: Some Indispensable Concepts"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc1MqHsiiKo
My notes on this video:
He wrote the book _Flow_, is a leader on software development mgmt. Tries to talk some sense into people trying blindly to lift manufacturing schemes into other areas of life. Software development, traffic systems, Internet queueing all have HIGH variability, whereas manufacturing has very low variability.
Ironically, programmers solved heterogeneous flow 40 years ago for multi-tasking OS’s and have innovated it several times since. Yet they don’t use these techniques for project management.
Cost of Delay (a little), OPTIMUM batch sizes (not blindly one-piece flow), how transaction costs affect these things… Good talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc1MqHsiiKo
My notes on this video:
He wrote the book _Flow_, is a leader on software development mgmt. Tries to talk some sense into people trying blindly to lift manufacturing schemes into other areas of life. Software development, traffic systems, Internet queueing all have HIGH variability, whereas manufacturing has very low variability.
Ironically, programmers solved heterogeneous flow 40 years ago for multi-tasking OS’s and have innovated it several times since. Yet they don’t use these techniques for project management.
Cost of Delay (a little), OPTIMUM batch sizes (not blindly one-piece flow), how transaction costs affect these things… Good talk.
January 15, 2019 at 20:03 |
Bernie
Bernie
Thanks for the video - I'll try to watch it tonight. Reinertsen's book << The Principles of Product Development Flow >> is excellent, so many great concepts explained very clearly. He's got a good blog too - but I can't find the URL!
Are you perhaps conflating his book with << Flow >> by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? Also an interesting (and influential) book but I didn't really get much out of the later chapters.
Are you perhaps conflating his book with << Flow >> by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? Also an interesting (and influential) book but I didn't really get much out of the later chapters.
January 15, 2019 at 21:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Yes, Reinertsen's book indeed has a title that only ENDS in "Flow." I binged a bunch of his YouTube videos a little while ago and saw a graphic of that book, in which "FLOW" stands out in bright yellow, and I missed the rest of the title visually.
I did read the Csikszentmihalyi _Flow_ years ago and remember liking it.
I did read the Csikszentmihalyi _Flow_ years ago and remember liking it.
January 16, 2019 at 1:15 |
Bernie
Bernie
Interesting, and definitely worth thinking about the technical ways of managing Flow.
However, the premise that Lean Software arises out of Toyota Production is slightly inaccurate. In fact, while those concepts were tried, the current generation of Lean thinking arises out of Lean Product Development, where designing complex products (say, a car) can easily be compared to the complexity of software design. C.f. Mary Poppendieck.
If you're all about spitting out software features as fast as possible, you're missing the point. The innovations presented in the video about reducing queue time or reducing variability, and all that would be fine if our aim was simply delivery. The problem with this assessment is that there is a feedback loop. Delivering the first element gives you new information that improves the second element being delivered. So rather than rush to get both out ASAP, rush to get the first out, and get a better result overall.
However, the premise that Lean Software arises out of Toyota Production is slightly inaccurate. In fact, while those concepts were tried, the current generation of Lean thinking arises out of Lean Product Development, where designing complex products (say, a car) can easily be compared to the complexity of software design. C.f. Mary Poppendieck.
If you're all about spitting out software features as fast as possible, you're missing the point. The innovations presented in the video about reducing queue time or reducing variability, and all that would be fine if our aim was simply delivery. The problem with this assessment is that there is a feedback loop. Delivering the first element gives you new information that improves the second element being delivered. So rather than rush to get both out ASAP, rush to get the first out, and get a better result overall.
January 16, 2019 at 1:40 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
None of this invalidates the very good talk. The speaker clearly understands these matters.
January 16, 2019 at 2:02 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
The thing about product development is that ultimately your production system aims to produce only one output. Not 10000 cars, one car. But many versions of that car until you are happy and ready to turn it over to manufacturing or for other product types to installation. So a high level view of the flow is we want to get one version of the product ASAP so as to inform the improvements for the second version. Diving in closer, we see the pieces and aspects of the product and delivering some individuals quickly can help other individuals improve sooner.
Thus, the priority in development is what aspects can teach us the most when completed.
In personal work management, your priority is then whatever tasks have that character where getting them done has an impact on future work. Or future living for that matter. Tasks with low impact come whenever you can’t effectively continue work on the more impactful tasks.
Thus, the priority in development is what aspects can teach us the most when completed.
In personal work management, your priority is then whatever tasks have that character where getting them done has an impact on future work. Or future living for that matter. Tasks with low impact come whenever you can’t effectively continue work on the more impactful tasks.
January 16, 2019 at 17:10 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I think that, of all the Long List systems in here, these AF2 systems just might be the best of them all because they reduce resistance and create momentum by mimicking the effects of the FV systems with no need for pre-scanning while utilizing the clumping effect of Long Lists better than Simple Scanning. On the other hand, the "day-trapping" AF2 variant might be marginally better than the "page-trapping" one because the former better utilizes clumping and attenuation than the latter.
To review, "Clumping, Attenuation, and Maturity" was discussed here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
The AF2 variants mimic FV in that, like the FV variants after pre-selecting, you start at the latter part of the list. A well-matured long list usually has one's most wanted to do tasks at the or near the end. After doing these things, both the FV systems (ideally) and the improved AF2 systems would have the tasks standing out further up the list. Such a flow of tasks done creates a momentum of doing work, and in my experience both FFVP and trapping-AF2 have such an effect with a feel that is similar to each other, with of course the difference in that trapping-AF2 avoids the weakness of preselection and dwelling too much at the latter pages.
When it comes to clumping, the AF2 variants definitely utilizes it better than SS because of its returning to the end of the "trap" boundary at the beginning of each scan. However, it seems that the "day-trapping" AF2 is slightly better than "page-trapping" in utilizing clumping and attenuation.
Because pages are an artificial way of dividing tasks compared to dividing the list to tasks written in the same day, the former may disrupt clumping by accidentally dividing clumped tasks into separate pages. The latter, on the other hand, already always "clumps" tasks written and re-written in the same day.
Dating each time the list was closed also maximize attenuation since you can note how long old tasks have been remaining in your long list.