Discussion Forum > Variant on serial no-list
Seraphim:
<< It's a different mentality than "high speed and high volume" >>
Slow speed and low volume then?
<< It's a different mentality than "high speed and high volume" >>
Slow speed and low volume then?
February 7, 2019 at 23:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark wrote:
<< I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude. I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks. >>
I responded:
<< Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.>>
Mark responded:
<< But aren't we talking about long lists here? At least I am - I've lost track of what everyone else is talking about. >>
In the discussion above, we've talked about both kinds of lists, and how they typically tend to handle recurring items.
With No-List, systems for recurring tasks tend to emerge automatically. You, of course, were the first one to notice this.
With Long-List, somehow the recurring tasks tend to stay on the Long List. The Long List system itself becomes the method for handling most recurring tasks. A concomitant effect is that the list tends to become dominated by such tasks. I find this to be a drawback of Long Lists.
You got the impression from some of our comments that we therefore believe recurring tasks are bad. I don't think they are bad. I just like how No List makes them invisible by spontaneously creating systems to handle them better. It clears my mind, helps me focus.
<< if it needs doing it should either be on the [Long] list or be something that is automatically done at the correct interval. >>
Yes, this gets to the heart of it. With Long List systems, the recurring tasks tend to stay on the Long List, and are NOT done automatically. It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but that seems to be the typical experience.
<< I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude. I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks. >>
I responded:
<< Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.>>
Mark responded:
<< But aren't we talking about long lists here? At least I am - I've lost track of what everyone else is talking about. >>
In the discussion above, we've talked about both kinds of lists, and how they typically tend to handle recurring items.
With No-List, systems for recurring tasks tend to emerge automatically. You, of course, were the first one to notice this.
With Long-List, somehow the recurring tasks tend to stay on the Long List. The Long List system itself becomes the method for handling most recurring tasks. A concomitant effect is that the list tends to become dominated by such tasks. I find this to be a drawback of Long Lists.
You got the impression from some of our comments that we therefore believe recurring tasks are bad. I don't think they are bad. I just like how No List makes them invisible by spontaneously creating systems to handle them better. It clears my mind, helps me focus.
<< if it needs doing it should either be on the [Long] list or be something that is automatically done at the correct interval. >>
Yes, this gets to the heart of it. With Long List systems, the recurring tasks tend to stay on the Long List, and are NOT done automatically. It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but that seems to be the typical experience.
February 7, 2019 at 23:23 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark wrote:
<< Slow speed and low volume then? >>
Of course not.
I want to quickly grasp the totality of my situation, discover where I need to focus, and generate the outcomes I want.
Yes, I want speed, but speed in repeating that cycle as quickly as possible, not to process as many tasks as quickly as possible.
Yes, I want volume, but volume in the size of the impact and outcomes, not the number of tasks I process.
You seem to be saying that to get the things I am describing here, I need to be able to process as many tasks as possible as quickly as possible. Cycle through the list quickly, get closure on lingering tasks quickly, etc. I think that's a core premise of Long List systems. Is that what you are saying? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
In any case, I think No List systems challenge that premise. I just don't think it's necessary to process as many tasks as possible as quickly as possible to find focus and get great outcomes.
<< Slow speed and low volume then? >>
Of course not.
I want to quickly grasp the totality of my situation, discover where I need to focus, and generate the outcomes I want.
Yes, I want speed, but speed in repeating that cycle as quickly as possible, not to process as many tasks as quickly as possible.
Yes, I want volume, but volume in the size of the impact and outcomes, not the number of tasks I process.
You seem to be saying that to get the things I am describing here, I need to be able to process as many tasks as possible as quickly as possible. Cycle through the list quickly, get closure on lingering tasks quickly, etc. I think that's a core premise of Long List systems. Is that what you are saying? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
In any case, I think No List systems challenge that premise. I just don't think it's necessary to process as many tasks as possible as quickly as possible to find focus and get great outcomes.
February 7, 2019 at 23:38 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I think we may be talking round the houses here. When I say High Speed High Volume I'm getting the impression that you think I mean rushing round a list of 400 tasks as quickly as possible regardless of whether the tasks are actually achieving anything useful or not.
This is almost precisely the opposite of what I am in fact doing. Currently I have 59 tasks on my Long List. They are all highly relevant and get actioned quickly without hanging around. Any tasks which get on the list and are not relevant get quickly weeded out. The speed is because I have stripped out all the normal time wasters (which does not mean that I have stripped out rest and entertainment).
One of the big time wasters is deciding which tasks to do out of the ones that have already been put on the list. The Long List system is designed to do that for you. A lot of the speed comes from this being built in.
So to sum up:
High Volume does not refer to the number of tasks on the list at any one time, but to the number of worthwhile projects which one is capable of processing.
HIgh Speed does not refer to rushing through the work without any regard to relevance or quality. It means that one's processing speed for relevant projects is high because resistance and time-wasting have been stripped out.
I think we may be talking round the houses here. When I say High Speed High Volume I'm getting the impression that you think I mean rushing round a list of 400 tasks as quickly as possible regardless of whether the tasks are actually achieving anything useful or not.
This is almost precisely the opposite of what I am in fact doing. Currently I have 59 tasks on my Long List. They are all highly relevant and get actioned quickly without hanging around. Any tasks which get on the list and are not relevant get quickly weeded out. The speed is because I have stripped out all the normal time wasters (which does not mean that I have stripped out rest and entertainment).
One of the big time wasters is deciding which tasks to do out of the ones that have already been put on the list. The Long List system is designed to do that for you. A lot of the speed comes from this being built in.
So to sum up:
High Volume does not refer to the number of tasks on the list at any one time, but to the number of worthwhile projects which one is capable of processing.
HIgh Speed does not refer to rushing through the work without any regard to relevance or quality. It means that one's processing speed for relevant projects is high because resistance and time-wasting have been stripped out.
February 8, 2019 at 14:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Well then, I am very glad we got that cleared up. :-)
February 8, 2019 at 19:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
February 8, 2019 at 21:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Yes, I love that blog post. Excellent. This approach works great for me.
In the later post that I cited, http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/1/high-volume-high-speed-low-resistance.html , you seemed to be taking a different approach, leaning more toward the "Get it all done" side.
I remember when I first read that "high volume, high speed" post, I wondered whether you were speaking in hyperbole, or really meant "get it ALL done". I remember thinking it felt like a change of mode from the "Natural Selection of Tasks".
For example:
<< The aim of this method is to enable you to do *anything* and *everything*, with minimum resistance. >>
<< Since my expience so far with this system is that just about every task gets worked on during the course of the day, it doesn't really matter much what order you do them in. >>
(The method you were testing at the time was eventually revealed to be Real Autofocus.)
Anyway, I think this discussion we've been having finally clarifies it for me. Thanks.
In the later post that I cited, http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/1/high-volume-high-speed-low-resistance.html , you seemed to be taking a different approach, leaning more toward the "Get it all done" side.
I remember when I first read that "high volume, high speed" post, I wondered whether you were speaking in hyperbole, or really meant "get it ALL done". I remember thinking it felt like a change of mode from the "Natural Selection of Tasks".
For example:
<< The aim of this method is to enable you to do *anything* and *everything*, with minimum resistance. >>
<< Since my expience so far with this system is that just about every task gets worked on during the course of the day, it doesn't really matter much what order you do them in. >>
(The method you were testing at the time was eventually revealed to be Real Autofocus.)
Anyway, I think this discussion we've been having finally clarifies it for me. Thanks.
February 8, 2019 at 22:56 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Going back to Mark's comments last week. Yes, those quarters. The only things on your list should be things you need/intend to do. And you don't automatically know the value of every task without looking at it.
I agree with these points you make, but reject those ideas being near the conclusion of the matter. I more and more strongly believe that there simply are things that are more valuable and things less valuable, and it is incumbent on you to figure out the difference and choose to keep valuable things.
It is also not correct to reduce the decision to yes or no. There are levels of quality to your tasks, and frequency and intensity. For me, while there are myriad household tasks I can spend my time on, I am choosing to devote more time to business projects. Household work won't be undone, but it will be done less. And further I can choose how I do these tasks and choose things that are more efficient over less. E.g. I have settled on focused reorganizing and reducing mess over routine cleaning as a priority activity. If this is successful, I expect future cleaning will take much less time, and future activity will also take less time (getting started, cleaning up).
To abbreviate, it is much more valuable to think carefully about the tasks you take on than it is to do the tasks. Organizing the tasks is not nearly so important. Simple scanning will handle your list of tasks just fine.
So far I feel this serial no-list is helping me to think more about what I do and how, where a long list system just had me reacting to seeing routines and doing them. Thinking is better.
I agree with these points you make, but reject those ideas being near the conclusion of the matter. I more and more strongly believe that there simply are things that are more valuable and things less valuable, and it is incumbent on you to figure out the difference and choose to keep valuable things.
It is also not correct to reduce the decision to yes or no. There are levels of quality to your tasks, and frequency and intensity. For me, while there are myriad household tasks I can spend my time on, I am choosing to devote more time to business projects. Household work won't be undone, but it will be done less. And further I can choose how I do these tasks and choose things that are more efficient over less. E.g. I have settled on focused reorganizing and reducing mess over routine cleaning as a priority activity. If this is successful, I expect future cleaning will take much less time, and future activity will also take less time (getting started, cleaning up).
To abbreviate, it is much more valuable to think carefully about the tasks you take on than it is to do the tasks. Organizing the tasks is not nearly so important. Simple scanning will handle your list of tasks just fine.
So far I feel this serial no-list is helping me to think more about what I do and how, where a long list system just had me reacting to seeing routines and doing them. Thinking is better.
February 14, 2019 at 2:44 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan: your comment resonated with me. We can't solve our little productivity problems at the level of new methods or new techniques. You don't solve the problem at that level. You go up a level or three to see the thinking that is causing the problem, learn from it, and then the downstream problem gets swept away.
But certain techniques, like serial no-list, can be aids to thinking about our mindsets if we approach them that way. I *could* feel guilty about not vacuuming the house more often, but my no-lists are showing me that I'm simply in a very busy period of work and life right now, I have finite attention/energy/focus, and tasks such as vacuuming are a low priorities.
But certain techniques, like serial no-list, can be aids to thinking about our mindsets if we approach them that way. I *could* feel guilty about not vacuuming the house more often, but my no-lists are showing me that I'm simply in a very busy period of work and life right now, I have finite attention/energy/focus, and tasks such as vacuuming are a low priorities.
February 14, 2019 at 15:27 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
"It is also not correct to reduce the decision to yes or no. There are levels of quality to your tasks, and frequency and intensity." Alan
It's more complex than that. The importance and urgency of some tasks is affected by other tasks. If I decide to repave the driveway this summer, than putting sealant on it this spring becomes much less important. Researching paving companies in time to get the work done becomes very important.
It's more complex than that. The importance and urgency of some tasks is affected by other tasks. If I decide to repave the driveway this summer, than putting sealant on it this spring becomes much less important. Researching paving companies in time to get the work done becomes very important.
February 14, 2019 at 22:12 |
Cricket
Cricket
Thinking more, it also depends on what else is happening. Normally, I buy food at the grocery store and cook it. It's a little healthier, and cost a lot less than going out. If I'm really busy then saving time or forcing myself out of the house is more important, so I'll spend more money and eat out. Vacuuming the house is important because it keeps our home comfortable, it becomes more important before my in-laws visit, or after a mess is made, and less important if I'm temporarily busy with other things.
If it's a short-term busy with other things, I will make different decisions then if it's something long-term. If you expensive meals out for a one week crunch is different than always eating out because I'm always too busy to cook.
If it's a short-term busy with other things, I will make different decisions then if it's something long-term. If you expensive meals out for a one week crunch is different than always eating out because I'm always too busy to cook.
February 15, 2019 at 14:29 |
Cricket
Cricket
<< I think you are ignoring the fact that it's you in the first place that puts the tasks on the list. You wouldn't use Colley's Rule to find the best restaurant in town if you owned all the restaurants in town yourself. >>
I put all the stuff on my list that's currently on my mind.
My goal is not then to get it all done, "high speed and high volume".
My goal is to look at all this and assess -- given all these things that are on my mind, what is it I am really trying to do, anyway? Among the actions on my list - what will help me achieve those outcomes? What is going to have the most impact, what is OK to allow to wait, what is OK to drop, what should I be doing instead, that isn’t already listed. Etc.
It's a different mentality than "high speed and high volume" -- which is what triggered this particular thread of discussion.