Discussion Forum > MEPFED vs WOPED
Alan:
The mathematics of this actually favours WOPED.
Suppose you have five books to read of approximately equal length and difficulty.
It takes one week to read each book.
If you read them using MEPFED it will take you five weeks and you will finish all the books at about the same time. In other words, you will have to wait five weeks before finishing any of the books.
If you read them using WOPED it will also take you five weeks to finish them all, but you will have finished one book at the end of the first week, two at the end of the second and so on.
But like you in practice I'd go for the middle ground.
The mathematics of this actually favours WOPED.
Suppose you have five books to read of approximately equal length and difficulty.
It takes one week to read each book.
If you read them using MEPFED it will take you five weeks and you will finish all the books at about the same time. In other words, you will have to wait five weeks before finishing any of the books.
If you read them using WOPED it will also take you five weeks to finish them all, but you will have finished one book at the end of the first week, two at the end of the second and so on.
But like you in practice I'd go for the middle ground.
January 25, 2019 at 16:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
A little everyday, or at least several times each week, works better for me in most cases.
When I'm resisting a project, a little everyday usually breaks the resistance in a few days, then I can put in a few good longer sessions.
Thinking of a project in small chunks makes it easier to squeeze in around other things. I don't wait for a large block of time.
When learning, physical or mental skill, a little everyday is much more effective.
If a project involves a lot of people, frequent little bits help me remember what's going on, so chance conversations are more useful. Often when I'm at a meeting for one thing, I'll see someone who I'm doing more than one project with.
I find a little bit in each room every day works better than one room a day, or one full day of cleaning. They are less likely to reach the stage of so far behind that another day won't hurt, or feel like so much has accumulated it will be a major project. If I think in terms of a little everyday, I pick up after myself everyday, rather than leave it for the weekly cleanning. If the room is in good shape I will tackle a bit that needs less frequent attentionrather than say the bathroom looks good this week and do nothing. It's also more responsive to unexpected messes. It's easier to divide several 5-minute chunks over the day, useful for breaks, than a big chunk in one room.
I'm not saying I always do it, but when I do I am less stressed and the whole house looks better than when I experiment with one room per day.
When the project is small, the do it in large chunks mindset actually prevents me from just doing it. It doesn't seem large enough to be worth doing, so I wait until it's urgent or I can combine it with another project. Also, if I'm in the large chunks mindset, and I don't have everything I need to fully finish a project, I won't start. If I think in small chunks, I'm more likely to do what I can't. Since many of my projects involve back and forth between multiple people, sometimes multiple rounds, waiting until I have everything doesn't work.
I usually lose interest right after the official project is done, when all that's left is neatly archiving the notes, I'm tired of it, and the next project looks interested. A little bit every day means that the day after publishing, that project still gets a turn.
Having said that, I think many projects work better if they get middle and often rather than little and often. If I apply little and often to everything, I start too many plates spinning.
When I'm resisting a project, a little everyday usually breaks the resistance in a few days, then I can put in a few good longer sessions.
Thinking of a project in small chunks makes it easier to squeeze in around other things. I don't wait for a large block of time.
When learning, physical or mental skill, a little everyday is much more effective.
If a project involves a lot of people, frequent little bits help me remember what's going on, so chance conversations are more useful. Often when I'm at a meeting for one thing, I'll see someone who I'm doing more than one project with.
I find a little bit in each room every day works better than one room a day, or one full day of cleaning. They are less likely to reach the stage of so far behind that another day won't hurt, or feel like so much has accumulated it will be a major project. If I think in terms of a little everyday, I pick up after myself everyday, rather than leave it for the weekly cleanning. If the room is in good shape I will tackle a bit that needs less frequent attentionrather than say the bathroom looks good this week and do nothing. It's also more responsive to unexpected messes. It's easier to divide several 5-minute chunks over the day, useful for breaks, than a big chunk in one room.
I'm not saying I always do it, but when I do I am less stressed and the whole house looks better than when I experiment with one room per day.
When the project is small, the do it in large chunks mindset actually prevents me from just doing it. It doesn't seem large enough to be worth doing, so I wait until it's urgent or I can combine it with another project. Also, if I'm in the large chunks mindset, and I don't have everything I need to fully finish a project, I won't start. If I think in small chunks, I'm more likely to do what I can't. Since many of my projects involve back and forth between multiple people, sometimes multiple rounds, waiting until I have everything doesn't work.
I usually lose interest right after the official project is done, when all that's left is neatly archiving the notes, I'm tired of it, and the next project looks interested. A little bit every day means that the day after publishing, that project still gets a turn.
Having said that, I think many projects work better if they get middle and often rather than little and often. If I apply little and often to everything, I start too many plates spinning.
January 25, 2019 at 18:04 |
Cricket
Cricket
Also, things that need doing every 3 days work better with the little bit every day schedule, because I'm not tempted to put them off to the weekly.
For big projects, little and often encourages me to start them earlier, which gives my subconscious more time to work, and gives me time to reconsider any wonderful ideas.
For big projects, little and often encourages me to start them earlier, which gives my subconscious more time to work, and gives me time to reconsider any wonderful ideas.
January 25, 2019 at 18:14 |
Cricket
Cricket
My boss says: "I'll give you three projects, all due in three weeks. Each will take about a week to do. Work them one at a time until finished. Start with the project for the most important customer. When it is finished in one week, that customer will be ecstatic that delivery was two weeks ahead of schedule!. Then work on the project for the next most important customer. When it is finished in one week, that customer will be ecstatic that delivery was one week ahead of schedule! Then work on the project for the last customer. That customer will be satisfied that the project was completed on time.
January 25, 2019 at 20:38 |
Dave D
Dave D
In Pacheco-Vega's article MEPFED vs WOPED, he makes the point that though WOPED is mathematically more efficient, MEPFED creates more productivity for people like him who tire and lose focus/productivity when working for too long on one research paper. His conclusion is specific to the writing of research papers by professors with his temperament who need variety to stay engaged in their work. If we were discussing the programming of dispassionate research paper-writing robots, I think he would agree to go with WOPED.
In the reading analogy, you'll achieve more throughput spending all of your reading time on War and Peace until done, followed by spending all of your reading time on The Bible, than by spending *the same* amount of reading time each day split between them, BUT that does not account for all the time you will lose when the prospect of reading nothing but War and Peace for months blunts your reading appetite down to a fraction of its former self. Again, not a problem for book-reading robots, if you happen to meet any that need programming.
In the reading analogy, you'll achieve more throughput spending all of your reading time on War and Peace until done, followed by spending all of your reading time on The Bible, than by spending *the same* amount of reading time each day split between them, BUT that does not account for all the time you will lose when the prospect of reading nothing but War and Peace for months blunts your reading appetite down to a fraction of its former self. Again, not a problem for book-reading robots, if you happen to meet any that need programming.
January 26, 2019 at 4:07 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
<< BUT that does not account for all the time you will lose when the prospect of reading nothing but War and Peace for months blunts your reading appetite down to a fraction of its former self. >>
Nevertheless that's exactly how I read War and Peace. I would never have got through it if I'd been reading it along with several other books. It would have petered out at some point. What you are leaving out of the equation is that War and Peace is a fantastically good read which once you've got into it carries you along. I've read it three times now and I've never been bored in the slightest by it.
As for the Bible. It is conveniently divided up into a large number of smaller books, each of which can be read in a few sittings.
I think the key is that progress is even more motivating than variety. In Dave D.'s example (immediately above your post) he's left out that it won't be just the customer who will be ecstatic at the project being delivered two weeks early. You will be too.
<< BUT that does not account for all the time you will lose when the prospect of reading nothing but War and Peace for months blunts your reading appetite down to a fraction of its former self. >>
Nevertheless that's exactly how I read War and Peace. I would never have got through it if I'd been reading it along with several other books. It would have petered out at some point. What you are leaving out of the equation is that War and Peace is a fantastically good read which once you've got into it carries you along. I've read it three times now and I've never been bored in the slightest by it.
As for the Bible. It is conveniently divided up into a large number of smaller books, each of which can be read in a few sittings.
I think the key is that progress is even more motivating than variety. In Dave D.'s example (immediately above your post) he's left out that it won't be just the customer who will be ecstatic at the project being delivered two weeks early. You will be too.
January 26, 2019 at 11:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thinking about the downfalls of MEPFED, since, despite my enthusiasm it isn't perfect.
It's easy to say if I don't work on it today, it won't matter, I'll only be 15 minutes behind. Multiplied by several projects today, times several days.
It's easy to start too many plates spinning and get overwhelmed. Too many details to keep track of. Too many things for your subconscious to think about, so it doesn't have room to work.
More time getting the folder out, spreading out the notes, then putting it all away and clearing the desk for the next project, than if you stick with one.
Risk of stopping because the system says so, without giving yourself the chance to get into flow.
It's easy to say if I don't work on it today, it won't matter, I'll only be 15 minutes behind. Multiplied by several projects today, times several days.
It's easy to start too many plates spinning and get overwhelmed. Too many details to keep track of. Too many things for your subconscious to think about, so it doesn't have room to work.
More time getting the folder out, spreading out the notes, then putting it all away and clearing the desk for the next project, than if you stick with one.
Risk of stopping because the system says so, without giving yourself the chance to get into flow.
January 26, 2019 at 15:12 |
Cricket
Cricket
Mark,
"Nevertheless that's exactly how I read War and Peace... I think the key is that progress is even more motivating than variety."
This is undoubtedly true for many people at many times but is a highly personal result that isn't even always true for one person. All I'm trying to point out is that Pacheco-Vega didn't write his article to prove whether MEPFED or WOPED is "better," but to report on his experience trying them, specifically applied to writing research papers. For him MEPFED usually produces more output *when limited* to a handful of different papers.
In your systems, the rule "work for as long as you want" on each item allows for a self-adapting level of MEPFED vs. WOPED. If War and Peace is going great, then read it all day. If you're pushing yourself through it, spacing out and restarting the same page over and over, then switch and try again later. Your experience could differ due to different sections of the book, your own state of mind, how much you are getting interrupted at a certain time, and any number of other things.
The important thing is that we are not robots and shouldn't be programmed like them. We are something like robots with varying and unpredictable affinities for certain tasks at certain times. If you wanted to feed a series of tasks through such a robot, you would hope to feed your most valuable one through first, uninterrupted (WOPED), but if you found the robot repeatedly rejecting that task or flailing at it ineffectively--whereas you know it is capable of doing it much more effectively at other times--then you would make better of this time by switching to something else and trying the most valuable task again later. The key is to really come back to it later, or even perhaps... sooner.
"Nevertheless that's exactly how I read War and Peace... I think the key is that progress is even more motivating than variety."
This is undoubtedly true for many people at many times but is a highly personal result that isn't even always true for one person. All I'm trying to point out is that Pacheco-Vega didn't write his article to prove whether MEPFED or WOPED is "better," but to report on his experience trying them, specifically applied to writing research papers. For him MEPFED usually produces more output *when limited* to a handful of different papers.
In your systems, the rule "work for as long as you want" on each item allows for a self-adapting level of MEPFED vs. WOPED. If War and Peace is going great, then read it all day. If you're pushing yourself through it, spacing out and restarting the same page over and over, then switch and try again later. Your experience could differ due to different sections of the book, your own state of mind, how much you are getting interrupted at a certain time, and any number of other things.
The important thing is that we are not robots and shouldn't be programmed like them. We are something like robots with varying and unpredictable affinities for certain tasks at certain times. If you wanted to feed a series of tasks through such a robot, you would hope to feed your most valuable one through first, uninterrupted (WOPED), but if you found the robot repeatedly rejecting that task or flailing at it ineffectively--whereas you know it is capable of doing it much more effectively at other times--then you would make better of this time by switching to something else and trying the most valuable task again later. The key is to really come back to it later, or even perhaps... sooner.
January 26, 2019 at 20:41 |
Bernie
Bernie
Very interesting discussion!
Another factor that drives me to the middle ground is uncertainty and risk mitigation -- for example:
For books:
- Do I really want to read this book, once I find out what it's really about? Maybe I'd get more out of a different book?
- Is it really going to take me one week? Maybe it's less, maybe more, maybe a LOT more? In practice this can vary a lot! And the highest value stuff tends to create momentum and motivation that causes it to get done faster -- whereas the lower value stuff takes longer.
For projects:
- Will the project be unexpectedly blocked by external dependencies or unexpected issues? Could some of those take 1-2 weeks to become unblocked? Then it makes sense to do SOME work on ALL the projects, if nothing else but to discover these kinds of problems early enough so you can still get them done by the delivery date. (This kind of thing happens to me all the time...)
So I like using a combination:
- MEPFED to validate the value of the undertaking; mitigate risk; reduce uncertainty; and decide where to focus
- WOPED to get things completed and achieve the value sooner -- eliminate the cost of delay. But it's almost never One project - so maybe W*PED is more accurate, where * is a small number.
Another factor that drives me to the middle ground is uncertainty and risk mitigation -- for example:
For books:
- Do I really want to read this book, once I find out what it's really about? Maybe I'd get more out of a different book?
- Is it really going to take me one week? Maybe it's less, maybe more, maybe a LOT more? In practice this can vary a lot! And the highest value stuff tends to create momentum and motivation that causes it to get done faster -- whereas the lower value stuff takes longer.
For projects:
- Will the project be unexpectedly blocked by external dependencies or unexpected issues? Could some of those take 1-2 weeks to become unblocked? Then it makes sense to do SOME work on ALL the projects, if nothing else but to discover these kinds of problems early enough so you can still get them done by the delivery date. (This kind of thing happens to me all the time...)
So I like using a combination:
- MEPFED to validate the value of the undertaking; mitigate risk; reduce uncertainty; and decide where to focus
- WOPED to get things completed and achieve the value sooner -- eliminate the cost of delay. But it's almost never One project - so maybe W*PED is more accurate, where * is a small number.
January 27, 2019 at 1:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Bernie & Seraphim:
I agree with a lot of what you say. Indeed in my first comment I said that in practice I'd favour the middle way.
However there's no doubt in my mind that, all other things being equal, if you find that you are running with one project then go for it all out. The added impetus that successfully finishing that project will give you will help you get your other projects finished as well.
To go back to the example of reading books, I tend to accumulate books that I want to read on my Kindle. I find it's much more effective to put "Read Kindle" on my list than to list a number of books. That's because I will quickly find a book that I want to run with, instead of having to split my efforts and get continually distracted.
I agree with a lot of what you say. Indeed in my first comment I said that in practice I'd favour the middle way.
However there's no doubt in my mind that, all other things being equal, if you find that you are running with one project then go for it all out. The added impetus that successfully finishing that project will give you will help you get your other projects finished as well.
To go back to the example of reading books, I tend to accumulate books that I want to read on my Kindle. I find it's much more effective to put "Read Kindle" on my list than to list a number of books. That's because I will quickly find a book that I want to run with, instead of having to split my efforts and get continually distracted.
January 28, 2019 at 11:07 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark & Seraphim,
I hear us all really saying the same thing.
Mark,
Your systems are brilliant at self-adjusting the workload to one's psychological readiness, via little & often, standing out, and "work as long as you want." The only piece I am still struggling with is limiting focus enough to move completed work reliably through the system, without relying on deadlines to force it through—meaning that the deadlines amp up the standing-out-ness of my more challenging work.
Nothing wrong with embracing deadlines for their sense of urgency, but with my naturally microscopic time horizon, the urgency does not kick in until a very unpleasantly late moment, and it does not help at all with goals that don't have external deadlines (and I'm too smart to be fooled by my own pretend deadlines).
My first version of the F-task method was identical to the "P"riority task method you recently posted, but I wasn't able to hammer the task to my liking until I changed directions to AF2, scanning up from the bottom every time and constantly passing the focus task, which was very effective for me but as Seraphim points out might easily create resistance for others. Restarting the scan from last-page items, while not restarting from any other page, created a good balance for me for hammering on one task.
Unfortunately, when it comes to focusing on higher-level goals, this only passes the buck: I still need to identify which task to focus on, and then what to focus on next, and when to open up the focus if many little things need to be handled before focusing again on something else. In other words, there is still a slightly bigger picture in which I have to solve the overall TM issue all over again: what to do (focus on) next, for how long, and when to come back to it? The fractal nature of this has led me to try putting the focus tasks on their own Long List and scanning it for stand-outs when I need a new focus task, but of course though it was somewhat effective I had the very same issues on that list all over again (fractal!). I do have some better-than-nothing tools for this now, but they are still quite crude and unreliable, so I am still experimenting.
Anyway, kudos to you, Mark, for designing systems for us "temperamental robots." All the other systems either treat us incorrectly as, ehh, "robotic robots" and blame us when they fail, or they don't even rise to the level of a system.
I hear us all really saying the same thing.
Mark,
Your systems are brilliant at self-adjusting the workload to one's psychological readiness, via little & often, standing out, and "work as long as you want." The only piece I am still struggling with is limiting focus enough to move completed work reliably through the system, without relying on deadlines to force it through—meaning that the deadlines amp up the standing-out-ness of my more challenging work.
Nothing wrong with embracing deadlines for their sense of urgency, but with my naturally microscopic time horizon, the urgency does not kick in until a very unpleasantly late moment, and it does not help at all with goals that don't have external deadlines (and I'm too smart to be fooled by my own pretend deadlines).
My first version of the F-task method was identical to the "P"riority task method you recently posted, but I wasn't able to hammer the task to my liking until I changed directions to AF2, scanning up from the bottom every time and constantly passing the focus task, which was very effective for me but as Seraphim points out might easily create resistance for others. Restarting the scan from last-page items, while not restarting from any other page, created a good balance for me for hammering on one task.
Unfortunately, when it comes to focusing on higher-level goals, this only passes the buck: I still need to identify which task to focus on, and then what to focus on next, and when to open up the focus if many little things need to be handled before focusing again on something else. In other words, there is still a slightly bigger picture in which I have to solve the overall TM issue all over again: what to do (focus on) next, for how long, and when to come back to it? The fractal nature of this has led me to try putting the focus tasks on their own Long List and scanning it for stand-outs when I need a new focus task, but of course though it was somewhat effective I had the very same issues on that list all over again (fractal!). I do have some better-than-nothing tools for this now, but they are still quite crude and unreliable, so I am still experimenting.
Anyway, kudos to you, Mark, for designing systems for us "temperamental robots." All the other systems either treat us incorrectly as, ehh, "robotic robots" and blame us when they fail, or they don't even rise to the level of a system.
January 28, 2019 at 18:57 |
Bernie
Bernie
I like the way you describe this as "fractal".
As Scott Adams might say - "It's turtles all the way down!"
I think this is one reason the no-list method is more effective for me. It resets the focus every day. There is no need to shepherd the turtles. A few Outlook reminders and ticklers are enough to prompt me about important future projects or deadlines.
As Scott Adams might say - "It's turtles all the way down!"
I think this is one reason the no-list method is more effective for me. It resets the focus every day. There is no need to shepherd the turtles. A few Outlook reminders and ticklers are enough to prompt me about important future projects or deadlines.
January 29, 2019 at 15:37 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<I think the key is that progress is even more motivating than variety.>
<I would never have got through [war and peace] if I'd been reading it along with several other books. It would have petered out at some point.>
Mark, I'm struggling to process this all. Do you agree with the following?
1) Variety can still increase motivation—when you lose motivation on one task, you can increase your motivation by picking up a different task. This is one main benefit of using a list with two or more tasks on it with little and often.
2) Variety can sometimes diminished motivation—in other words, cause you to peter-out—because you are not making sufficient progress on any one task or project.
3) Progress (a lot on one thing) is more motivating than variety (a little progress on many things). That is, approaching the completion of one task produces more motivation than picking up a different task.
4) Progressing on one project is best only if you're able to "run with it". Otherwise, you may experience burnout, and motivation may decrease.
To summarize, the reason that "somewhere in the middle" is preferred is because both progress (WOPED) and variety (MEPFED) can motivate, but both can demotivate?
Maybe a better question to ask that gets at the heart of this is, if progress motivates more than variety, WHY NOT use WOPED and complete everything in series rather than the MEPFED way in parallel?
<I would never have got through [war and peace] if I'd been reading it along with several other books. It would have petered out at some point.>
Mark, I'm struggling to process this all. Do you agree with the following?
1) Variety can still increase motivation—when you lose motivation on one task, you can increase your motivation by picking up a different task. This is one main benefit of using a list with two or more tasks on it with little and often.
2) Variety can sometimes diminished motivation—in other words, cause you to peter-out—because you are not making sufficient progress on any one task or project.
3) Progress (a lot on one thing) is more motivating than variety (a little progress on many things). That is, approaching the completion of one task produces more motivation than picking up a different task.
4) Progressing on one project is best only if you're able to "run with it". Otherwise, you may experience burnout, and motivation may decrease.
To summarize, the reason that "somewhere in the middle" is preferred is because both progress (WOPED) and variety (MEPFED) can motivate, but both can demotivate?
Maybe a better question to ask that gets at the heart of this is, if progress motivates more than variety, WHY NOT use WOPED and complete everything in series rather than the MEPFED way in parallel?
January 29, 2019 at 23:15 |
Cameron
Cameron
Cameron,
"Maybe a better question to ask that gets at the heart of this is, if progress motivates more than variety, WHY NOT use WOPED and complete everything in series rather than the MEPFED way in parallel?"
I think all of the principles you've listed are true, but the question of whether WOPED or MEPFED wins is a distraction. I would just add one more principle: being maximally productive means focusing on the fewest projects that keep you still mentally engaged and working continuously. For unfeeling robots who never tire or get bored or develop resistance, that number is ONE, so it is a simple matter of WOPED. For us temperamental robots, work must be switched out when progress flags.
If I were running a factory full of temperamental robots, I would have an "A" project allocated to each one, and I would start by assigning all the A's. On a perfect day, they would all complete their "A" tasks, and then I would assign each the next most valuable task available. But as soon as any of them became blocked on its "A," I would immediately assign a "B" that I had previously determined was next-valuable. The trick is that B would not simply proceed to C and then D, etc., because that fails to focus on A. Instead, I would come and try A again as often as practical.
I.e., if one of these temperamental robots worked on B for 15 minutes before getting stuck, I would wonder if maybe enough time has passed that A is an option again, so I would restart from the top. The only reason not to try A again after B is if maybe B was a total non-starter, so it's only been 10 seconds since we failed at A. Then I would go on and try C. The point is to keep each robot operating on something that is both valuable and doable for that robot at that time.
A few years ago, I wanted to try this on myself, but keeping such a prioritized list current all the time was a losing proposition. It feels like there ought to be a simple, self-adapting way to produce such a list using something like one of our Long List processes, but I didn't spend much time on it. It's not hard to produce a top 3 list of important projects, but it's not clear to me how to unify that with all the little necessities in a nice, organic way like our Long List methods.
"Maybe a better question to ask that gets at the heart of this is, if progress motivates more than variety, WHY NOT use WOPED and complete everything in series rather than the MEPFED way in parallel?"
I think all of the principles you've listed are true, but the question of whether WOPED or MEPFED wins is a distraction. I would just add one more principle: being maximally productive means focusing on the fewest projects that keep you still mentally engaged and working continuously. For unfeeling robots who never tire or get bored or develop resistance, that number is ONE, so it is a simple matter of WOPED. For us temperamental robots, work must be switched out when progress flags.
If I were running a factory full of temperamental robots, I would have an "A" project allocated to each one, and I would start by assigning all the A's. On a perfect day, they would all complete their "A" tasks, and then I would assign each the next most valuable task available. But as soon as any of them became blocked on its "A," I would immediately assign a "B" that I had previously determined was next-valuable. The trick is that B would not simply proceed to C and then D, etc., because that fails to focus on A. Instead, I would come and try A again as often as practical.
I.e., if one of these temperamental robots worked on B for 15 minutes before getting stuck, I would wonder if maybe enough time has passed that A is an option again, so I would restart from the top. The only reason not to try A again after B is if maybe B was a total non-starter, so it's only been 10 seconds since we failed at A. Then I would go on and try C. The point is to keep each robot operating on something that is both valuable and doable for that robot at that time.
A few years ago, I wanted to try this on myself, but keeping such a prioritized list current all the time was a losing proposition. It feels like there ought to be a simple, self-adapting way to produce such a list using something like one of our Long List processes, but I didn't spend much time on it. It's not hard to produce a top 3 list of important projects, but it's not clear to me how to unify that with all the little necessities in a nice, organic way like our Long List methods.
January 29, 2019 at 23:53 |
Bernie
Bernie
<< A few years ago, I wanted to try this on myself, but keeping such a prioritized list current all the time was a losing proposition. It feels like there ought to be a simple, self-adapting way to produce such a list using something like one of our Long List processes >>
This is exactly what no-list does. We already know the top several priorities - we know them intuitively. Pondering for a few moments then putting them down on paper in a no-list gives me exactly this self-adapting list.
If I feel I am missing something I can scan over my old no-lists and find it quickly. Takes about a minute.
I suppose it’s possible to find a Long List method of presenting items to your attention that could give you similar results, but hard to imagine it would be faster or more accurate than No List.
This is exactly what no-list does. We already know the top several priorities - we know them intuitively. Pondering for a few moments then putting them down on paper in a no-list gives me exactly this self-adapting list.
If I feel I am missing something I can scan over my old no-lists and find it quickly. Takes about a minute.
I suppose it’s possible to find a Long List method of presenting items to your attention that could give you similar results, but hard to imagine it would be faster or more accurate than No List.
January 30, 2019 at 7:25 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
"I suppose it’s possible to find a Long List method of presenting items to your attention that could give you similar results, but hard to imagine it would be faster or more accurate than No List."
I spent a great deal of time on that once (there are even some posts on it here). I called it the Ulti-List and it was a spreadsheet with algorithms I built to prioritize the "right" things. It took me a long while to program/tweak and a short time to realize it was no better than my intuition plus a blank page/screen
I spent a great deal of time on that once (there are even some posts on it here). I called it the Ulti-List and it was a spreadsheet with algorithms I built to prioritize the "right" things. It took me a long while to program/tweak and a short time to realize it was no better than my intuition plus a blank page/screen
January 30, 2019 at 14:48 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
vegheadjones,
"It took me a long while to program/tweak and a short time to realize it was no better than my intuition plus a blank page/screen"
Dang-it!! I did that once, attempting to use the CD3 algorithm. It was actually pretty simple, and I was really excited to use it, but it went over like a lead balloon. I should have done better market research (LOL).
"It took me a long while to program/tweak and a short time to realize it was no better than my intuition plus a blank page/screen"
Dang-it!! I did that once, attempting to use the CD3 algorithm. It was actually pretty simple, and I was really excited to use it, but it went over like a lead balloon. I should have done better market research (LOL).
January 31, 2019 at 5:02 |
Bernie
Bernie
I had a short run with CD3. It was interesting but ultimately I found I would override it sometimes based on intuition. And it was a lot of overhead!
CD3 can be very useful when you have a lot of people with independent proposals for work items and you need a relatively objective standard by which to rank them. But in practice, even those rankings are overridden by the collective intuition of the group doing the ranking.
http://blackswanfarming.com/cost-of-delay-divided-by-duration/
http://www.scaledagileframework.com/wsjf/
CD3 can be very useful when you have a lot of people with independent proposals for work items and you need a relatively objective standard by which to rank them. But in practice, even those rankings are overridden by the collective intuition of the group doing the ranking.
http://blackswanfarming.com/cost-of-delay-divided-by-duration/
http://www.scaledagileframework.com/wsjf/
January 31, 2019 at 5:49 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
http://www.raulpacheco.org/resources/organization-and-time-management/
One article (http://www.raulpacheco.org/2017/02/mepfedvswoped/ ) asks, should you MEPFED or WOPED? That is, Move Every Project Forward Every Day, or Work One Project Every Day. Raul comes down in favor of the former. Myself I think the alternatives are too rigid, and there's a very healthy middle ground.