Discussion Forum > A different perspective on Personal Kanban
Aaron Hsu:
I think you've summed up the differences very well. I've never myself paid much attention to Personal Kanban, or indeed to anyone else's time management or work flow methods, because I find that if I do I'm either trying not to steal their ideas or reacting strongly against them.
However there are regular commenters on this blog who are into PK and I'd be interested in their reactions to what you've said.
I think you've summed up the differences very well. I've never myself paid much attention to Personal Kanban, or indeed to anyone else's time management or work flow methods, because I find that if I do I'm either trying not to steal their ideas or reacting strongly against them.
However there are regular commenters on this blog who are into PK and I'd be interested in their reactions to what you've said.
December 23, 2020 at 11:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks for this clear writeup on PK. I've always liked the simple visual aspect of PK, plus its focus on completion. From time to time, I've switched to a PK system, and always like the feeling I get when I move a lot of stuff to the DONE column. :-)
I've experimented a lot with PK and trying to find relationships with Mark's systems. It can be surprisingly difficult to translate any given MF system to PK.
For example, your write-up here for FVP is missing a critical element -- what to do after you complete a task. In FVP, you are supposed to look at the next dotted item ("X"), then scan down the list to find anything that you "want to do more than X". In no-question FVP, you can just scan down the list and see if anything stands out. Dot all those items.
How to model that on a PK? If all your dotted items are already in the READY column, then what exactly do you scan, when you complete a task? In a long-list format, it's very simple - just scan from the item you just completed, till the end of the list. But on a PK, you need to scan through the backlog items -- but started from where, exactly? It's quite difficult to answer this, when your dotted items have been removed from the context of the larger list.
Modeling FV is much easier, since you must complete all the dotted items before selecting a new set of dotted items. Just finish everything in the READY column, then grab a new set of tasks from BACKLOG and move them to READY. Simple. But then you lose FVP's responsiveness to changing urgencies and new demands.
This also points to a key difference in how PK and Long-List methods motivate you toward completion. PK does this visually -- the normal rules of Kanban don't allow you to move things regressively -- you can only move forward. WIP limits prompt you to clear out your WIP tasks before you pull anything new. So you are motivated to stay focused on the WIP items till they are completed.
With Long List methods, especially the ones like FVP that put a lot of emphasis toward the end of the list, the motivation comes from the momentum of repeated frequent exposure to the same items. This is amplified by the "clumping and attenuation" affects. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
The dynamics here are very different. I am not sure which approach is most effective.
It does raise an interesting question. When coming up with new ways of managing our time and work, how much do our basic assumptions limit the systems we create? If we start with an assumption that we are using a visual method such as Kanban, or even a specific Kanban or Agile application, these assumptions probably cause us to miss out on valuable insights that you can only get from an algorithm like FVP that works with a long list (since it is so difficult to model these kinds of algorithms on a Kanban board.) And conversely, the assumption that we are using a long list might prevent us from seeing other powerful ways to create motivation such as the visual sense of completion that PK has.
Mark has often challenged basic assumptions and invented completely new ideas like the Randomizer and all the No List methods. Or maybe even more fundamentally, ideas like "just go with whatever stands out and trust your intuition to guide you to the right actions". That idea alone challenges a lot of the TM literature out there!
I just wonder what other assumptions we can challenge, and which ones might be holding us back from reaching the next level of focus and accomplishment and satisfaction.
I've experimented a lot with PK and trying to find relationships with Mark's systems. It can be surprisingly difficult to translate any given MF system to PK.
For example, your write-up here for FVP is missing a critical element -- what to do after you complete a task. In FVP, you are supposed to look at the next dotted item ("X"), then scan down the list to find anything that you "want to do more than X". In no-question FVP, you can just scan down the list and see if anything stands out. Dot all those items.
How to model that on a PK? If all your dotted items are already in the READY column, then what exactly do you scan, when you complete a task? In a long-list format, it's very simple - just scan from the item you just completed, till the end of the list. But on a PK, you need to scan through the backlog items -- but started from where, exactly? It's quite difficult to answer this, when your dotted items have been removed from the context of the larger list.
Modeling FV is much easier, since you must complete all the dotted items before selecting a new set of dotted items. Just finish everything in the READY column, then grab a new set of tasks from BACKLOG and move them to READY. Simple. But then you lose FVP's responsiveness to changing urgencies and new demands.
This also points to a key difference in how PK and Long-List methods motivate you toward completion. PK does this visually -- the normal rules of Kanban don't allow you to move things regressively -- you can only move forward. WIP limits prompt you to clear out your WIP tasks before you pull anything new. So you are motivated to stay focused on the WIP items till they are completed.
With Long List methods, especially the ones like FVP that put a lot of emphasis toward the end of the list, the motivation comes from the momentum of repeated frequent exposure to the same items. This is amplified by the "clumping and attenuation" affects. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
The dynamics here are very different. I am not sure which approach is most effective.
It does raise an interesting question. When coming up with new ways of managing our time and work, how much do our basic assumptions limit the systems we create? If we start with an assumption that we are using a visual method such as Kanban, or even a specific Kanban or Agile application, these assumptions probably cause us to miss out on valuable insights that you can only get from an algorithm like FVP that works with a long list (since it is so difficult to model these kinds of algorithms on a Kanban board.) And conversely, the assumption that we are using a long list might prevent us from seeing other powerful ways to create motivation such as the visual sense of completion that PK has.
Mark has often challenged basic assumptions and invented completely new ideas like the Randomizer and all the No List methods. Or maybe even more fundamentally, ideas like "just go with whatever stands out and trust your intuition to guide you to the right actions". That idea alone challenges a lot of the TM literature out there!
I just wonder what other assumptions we can challenge, and which ones might be holding us back from reaching the next level of focus and accomplishment and satisfaction.
December 26, 2020 at 23:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Thanks for the reply! You're right that I glossed over the FVP re-scanning approach. In that case, with PK, I would use some sort of marker on the backlog to indicate where to scan from next. I could even use multiple small markers if I wanted to.
I also agree that completion and their approach to it is really where the MF and PK systems differ.
I think fundamentally, that either method of completion and things like clumping, attenuation, and maturity can fundamentally be mimicked in either system, but each system has a tendency to make certain approaches more "obvious" than the other. In fact, you could argue that all methods are, in some ways, fundamentally equivalent, but what they do is change the perspective to make certain things come into focus more easily, and thus, are more likely to guide you to doing work in one way or another, particularly if you have never seen another way to do the work. But if you know how all of the other methods do their work, then there is more freedom in applying an algorithm of one method to the visualization of another, and so forth. It's not clear to me whether this is "worth it" or not, but it's interesting to see.
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that MF has invented something like Randomizer or No List, but I think he's definitely enhanced and enriched the genre.
As for the "stand out" concept, I do have to note that while this is a terrifically powerful concept, and I like how "stand out" as a principle has come to the forefront in a lot of Mark's newer long list approaches, I can't say that I agree that this is a globally new contribution. It's true that it challenges some of the traditional TM literature, but in my reading, particularly in starting with the early 2000's when GTD was released, many of the most influential TM systems have all embraced the "stand out" principle and taught it in one form or another. GTD is famous for preaching this method of prioritization, and is famously averse to "rigid systems of priority". PK embraces the concept of "context drives priority" which is essentially just the "stand out" concept. However, the PK literature also includes ways of introducing more rigid priority structures for people who want that, whereas, on the opposite side, GTD dogma generally strongly resists doing this.
IMO, this generally leads to many PK users introducing some fixed priority system and then only layering "stand out" as a surface level final operation, rather than a core operation. On the flip side, it has been my experience and observation that many people struggle with the complete lack of operational action guidance with GTD because they are so far into the "stand out" model that even the notion of "Simple Scanning" as an algorithm is too intense, resulting in a higher degree of distraction and loss of focus.
MF's application of the "stand out" principle delivers a unique perspective, I think, because he incorporates it as the core prioritization mechanism, but also includes a scanning and actioning algorithm around that which is meant to "prime the pumps" in one way or the other, which I think has the promise of assisting in better actioning on intuition than something without that structure, such as what GTD does, or something that encourages more prioritization, such as PK.
IOW, a key contribution of MF systems, IMO, is not the principle of stand out, but of elevating the "how" of list processing to the fore, along with the why, what, and priority questions that have been discussed by many other systems. The algorithmic how can provide structure that other systems might ignore, and I feel that this is a uniquely Mark Forster contribution that should be recognized. But I would separate the question of meta-how (how do I process a list?) from the question of priority (which of these items is more important to do first?).
Thanks for the reply! You're right that I glossed over the FVP re-scanning approach. In that case, with PK, I would use some sort of marker on the backlog to indicate where to scan from next. I could even use multiple small markers if I wanted to.
I also agree that completion and their approach to it is really where the MF and PK systems differ.
I think fundamentally, that either method of completion and things like clumping, attenuation, and maturity can fundamentally be mimicked in either system, but each system has a tendency to make certain approaches more "obvious" than the other. In fact, you could argue that all methods are, in some ways, fundamentally equivalent, but what they do is change the perspective to make certain things come into focus more easily, and thus, are more likely to guide you to doing work in one way or another, particularly if you have never seen another way to do the work. But if you know how all of the other methods do their work, then there is more freedom in applying an algorithm of one method to the visualization of another, and so forth. It's not clear to me whether this is "worth it" or not, but it's interesting to see.
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that MF has invented something like Randomizer or No List, but I think he's definitely enhanced and enriched the genre.
As for the "stand out" concept, I do have to note that while this is a terrifically powerful concept, and I like how "stand out" as a principle has come to the forefront in a lot of Mark's newer long list approaches, I can't say that I agree that this is a globally new contribution. It's true that it challenges some of the traditional TM literature, but in my reading, particularly in starting with the early 2000's when GTD was released, many of the most influential TM systems have all embraced the "stand out" principle and taught it in one form or another. GTD is famous for preaching this method of prioritization, and is famously averse to "rigid systems of priority". PK embraces the concept of "context drives priority" which is essentially just the "stand out" concept. However, the PK literature also includes ways of introducing more rigid priority structures for people who want that, whereas, on the opposite side, GTD dogma generally strongly resists doing this.
IMO, this generally leads to many PK users introducing some fixed priority system and then only layering "stand out" as a surface level final operation, rather than a core operation. On the flip side, it has been my experience and observation that many people struggle with the complete lack of operational action guidance with GTD because they are so far into the "stand out" model that even the notion of "Simple Scanning" as an algorithm is too intense, resulting in a higher degree of distraction and loss of focus.
MF's application of the "stand out" principle delivers a unique perspective, I think, because he incorporates it as the core prioritization mechanism, but also includes a scanning and actioning algorithm around that which is meant to "prime the pumps" in one way or the other, which I think has the promise of assisting in better actioning on intuition than something without that structure, such as what GTD does, or something that encourages more prioritization, such as PK.
IOW, a key contribution of MF systems, IMO, is not the principle of stand out, but of elevating the "how" of list processing to the fore, along with the why, what, and priority questions that have been discussed by many other systems. The algorithmic how can provide structure that other systems might ignore, and I feel that this is a uniquely Mark Forster contribution that should be recognized. But I would separate the question of meta-how (how do I process a list?) from the question of priority (which of these items is more important to do first?).
December 28, 2020 at 22:46 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron and Seraphim:
As I said above I am not experienced in Kanban, but nevertheless your discussion has sparked a few thoughts in me.
I'll use as illustration Simple Scanning, which is the easiest (and possibly the best) of the Long List Systems.
Basically it consists of writing down everything you have to do and then going through the list doing everything that you feel like doing and leaving the rest until the next pass, and then repeating the process.
I think probably the majority of the Earth's population whose work is not entirely routine use something similar. So it's the philosophy behind it which is as significant as the system itself.
Simple Scanning has a number of different roles:
1) The list acts as a repository for everything that you must, should or could do.
2) It encourages the "little and often" approach to the tasks that you take on.
3) It enables your intuition to balance urgency, importance, difficulty and any other relevant factors in order to decide whether you should be working on a specific task or project now. This is done virtually instantaneously by feelings rather than conscious evaluation.
4) It shows visually which tasks/projects are not currently being actioned.
5) It protects you from resistance building up, because you never engage in work which you don't feel like doing at the time.
6) It gives you constant review of what work you have to do.
All these roles are important, but I would say that the most important and unique factor is 5). The biggest reason why time management systems fail is that resistance builds up to the work.
In Simple Scanning, there is no division of tasks between Backlog, Doing and Done. One still has the visual element, as Seraphim points out, of "clumping and attenuation" but this is only informative, not prescriptive in any way. The worker has complete freedom to do what tasks he or she wants on any pass through the list.
So, bearing in mind that my knowledge of Kanban is very limited, my feeling is that Kanban is liable to result in an intellectual answer as to what one should do next, rather than an intuitive one. Intellectual answers tend to result in resistance, while intuitive ones do not. Unfortunately resistance is a crucial factor which frequently determines success or failure.
As I said above I am not experienced in Kanban, but nevertheless your discussion has sparked a few thoughts in me.
I'll use as illustration Simple Scanning, which is the easiest (and possibly the best) of the Long List Systems.
Basically it consists of writing down everything you have to do and then going through the list doing everything that you feel like doing and leaving the rest until the next pass, and then repeating the process.
I think probably the majority of the Earth's population whose work is not entirely routine use something similar. So it's the philosophy behind it which is as significant as the system itself.
Simple Scanning has a number of different roles:
1) The list acts as a repository for everything that you must, should or could do.
2) It encourages the "little and often" approach to the tasks that you take on.
3) It enables your intuition to balance urgency, importance, difficulty and any other relevant factors in order to decide whether you should be working on a specific task or project now. This is done virtually instantaneously by feelings rather than conscious evaluation.
4) It shows visually which tasks/projects are not currently being actioned.
5) It protects you from resistance building up, because you never engage in work which you don't feel like doing at the time.
6) It gives you constant review of what work you have to do.
All these roles are important, but I would say that the most important and unique factor is 5). The biggest reason why time management systems fail is that resistance builds up to the work.
In Simple Scanning, there is no division of tasks between Backlog, Doing and Done. One still has the visual element, as Seraphim points out, of "clumping and attenuation" but this is only informative, not prescriptive in any way. The worker has complete freedom to do what tasks he or she wants on any pass through the list.
So, bearing in mind that my knowledge of Kanban is very limited, my feeling is that Kanban is liable to result in an intellectual answer as to what one should do next, rather than an intuitive one. Intellectual answers tend to result in resistance, while intuitive ones do not. Unfortunately resistance is a crucial factor which frequently determines success or failure.
December 28, 2020 at 23:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I see Aaron and I were both writing comments at the same time. He finished first!
I had not read his when I finished the above comment. But I will read it shortly and, if I feel it is necessary or helpful, write further on the subject.
I had not read his when I finished the above comment. But I will read it shortly and, if I feel it is necessary or helpful, write further on the subject.
December 28, 2020 at 23:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron Hsu:
<< I would separate the question of meta-how (how do I process a list?) from the question of priority (which of these items is more important to do first?). >>
Finding the balance between these two questions is the real key point, and the reason why there are innumerable time management systems.
I would add a third question which is motivation (how do I maintain my ability/desire to do the right work?)
To me that is an even more essential question than the other two. Because if it isn't answered successfully then one is constantly going to veer between the two rocks of :
1) Concentrating on the most important work, which usually results in resistance and burn-out.
2) Concentrating on easy make-work which results in nothing much getting done.
My work over the last thirty years or so has basically been about finding the balance between those three questions. The fact that I haven't yet found a 100% satisfactory system (plus the many competing systems which are not by me) suggests that it is a very difficult balance to find.
However taking Simple Scanning as an example, let's examine how it approaches the three questions above:
1) How do I process a list?
This is simplicity itself. The list is just a list - as complete as one can make it. There is no requirement for any special order, markings, indentations. And the processing consists of just going round and round the list. This reduces the overhead of running and maintaining the list to the absolute minimum, for all practical intents and purposes zero.
2) Which of these items is more important to do first?
The answer to this question depends on an enormous number of variables, e.g. urgency, importance of the project, time of day, weather, psychological readiness, energy levels, etc. One could draw up a table giving weighted values to each variable. This would take time and energy, and I doubt whether the answer would actually be of much use.
Alternatively one could head straight for the feelings which each task produces in our minds and use them as our guide. This is in my opinion much more reliable than trying to consciously assess a collection of variables. Our subconscious has already done the work for us. All we need to do is allow it to express itself.
"Standing out" is how that is done.
3) How do I maintain motivation?
"Standing out" solves that question too, because in my experience nothing "stands out" without the accompanying mental freedom to do it. And another factor is "little and often", which makes it much easier to maintain motivation and keep progress going.
The two main problems with Simple Scanning are 1) the tendency of the list to expand beyond one's capacity to do everything, and b) urgent tasks being at the end of a very long list.
Both these problems are easily solved, if the will to do so is there, by frequent weeding of the list (using "reverse standing-out") and by instructing one's mind to move faster through the list. "Standing out" is not some mystic voice from above, but something under our control.
<< I would separate the question of meta-how (how do I process a list?) from the question of priority (which of these items is more important to do first?). >>
Finding the balance between these two questions is the real key point, and the reason why there are innumerable time management systems.
I would add a third question which is motivation (how do I maintain my ability/desire to do the right work?)
To me that is an even more essential question than the other two. Because if it isn't answered successfully then one is constantly going to veer between the two rocks of :
1) Concentrating on the most important work, which usually results in resistance and burn-out.
2) Concentrating on easy make-work which results in nothing much getting done.
My work over the last thirty years or so has basically been about finding the balance between those three questions. The fact that I haven't yet found a 100% satisfactory system (plus the many competing systems which are not by me) suggests that it is a very difficult balance to find.
However taking Simple Scanning as an example, let's examine how it approaches the three questions above:
1) How do I process a list?
This is simplicity itself. The list is just a list - as complete as one can make it. There is no requirement for any special order, markings, indentations. And the processing consists of just going round and round the list. This reduces the overhead of running and maintaining the list to the absolute minimum, for all practical intents and purposes zero.
2) Which of these items is more important to do first?
The answer to this question depends on an enormous number of variables, e.g. urgency, importance of the project, time of day, weather, psychological readiness, energy levels, etc. One could draw up a table giving weighted values to each variable. This would take time and energy, and I doubt whether the answer would actually be of much use.
Alternatively one could head straight for the feelings which each task produces in our minds and use them as our guide. This is in my opinion much more reliable than trying to consciously assess a collection of variables. Our subconscious has already done the work for us. All we need to do is allow it to express itself.
"Standing out" is how that is done.
3) How do I maintain motivation?
"Standing out" solves that question too, because in my experience nothing "stands out" without the accompanying mental freedom to do it. And another factor is "little and often", which makes it much easier to maintain motivation and keep progress going.
The two main problems with Simple Scanning are 1) the tendency of the list to expand beyond one's capacity to do everything, and b) urgent tasks being at the end of a very long list.
Both these problems are easily solved, if the will to do so is there, by frequent weeding of the list (using "reverse standing-out") and by instructing one's mind to move faster through the list. "Standing out" is not some mystic voice from above, but something under our control.
December 29, 2020 at 12:00 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster:
Thanks for the deep analysis, and insight! I do think that this "balance" seems to be something that is ever difficult to find. I'm continuing to enjoy my 5/2 journey so far. :-)
Thanks for the deep analysis, and insight! I do think that this "balance" seems to be something that is ever difficult to find. I'm continuing to enjoy my 5/2 journey so far. :-)
December 29, 2020 at 18:33 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
I think the balance is easiest to find with FVP, particularly the No Question version. At least that's my experience. Maybe I'll write a bit more about this. But at the moment it's time to go to bed!
I think the balance is easiest to find with FVP, particularly the No Question version. At least that's my experience. Maybe I'll write a bit more about this. But at the moment it's time to go to bed!
December 30, 2020 at 1:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron wrote:
<< I could even use multiple small markers if I wanted to. >>
Yes, you'd need multiple small markers, and some mechanism to remember which markers are associated with each task you'd pulled into the WIP column.
Might be simpler just to leave them all in one column, and put a marker on the items that stand out as ready to be done.
But then, it might be simpler just to keep them on a list and dot the items that stand out. :-)
<< you could argue that all methods are, in some ways, fundamentally equivalent >>
I wouldn't argue that. TM system rules (incl. PK rules) always seem to have emergent properties that give unexpected results - changing your flow and focus in very significant ways - and changing what tasks get momentum, and which ones get neglected; and all of this impacts what gets added to the lists in the first place.
<< I don't know if I would go so far as to say that MF has invented something like Randomizer or No List >>
If it wasn't Mark, then it was somebody doing a very good job of impersonating him! :-)
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/7/the-simplest-and-most-effective-method-of-all.html
<< I could even use multiple small markers if I wanted to. >>
Yes, you'd need multiple small markers, and some mechanism to remember which markers are associated with each task you'd pulled into the WIP column.
Might be simpler just to leave them all in one column, and put a marker on the items that stand out as ready to be done.
But then, it might be simpler just to keep them on a list and dot the items that stand out. :-)
<< you could argue that all methods are, in some ways, fundamentally equivalent >>
I wouldn't argue that. TM system rules (incl. PK rules) always seem to have emergent properties that give unexpected results - changing your flow and focus in very significant ways - and changing what tasks get momentum, and which ones get neglected; and all of this impacts what gets added to the lists in the first place.
<< I don't know if I would go so far as to say that MF has invented something like Randomizer or No List >>
If it wasn't Mark, then it was somebody doing a very good job of impersonating him! :-)
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/7/the-simplest-and-most-effective-method-of-all.html
December 30, 2020 at 5:07 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< my feeling is that Kanban is liable to result in an intellectual answer as to what one should do next, rather than an intuitive one >>
I've often seen that happen, both in Personal Kanban and Team Kanban. It's easy to overthink the rules, and this eventually creates more friction than flow. Best to keep it simple.
<< The two main problems with Simple Scanning are 1) the tendency of the list to expand beyond one's capacity to do everything, and b) urgent tasks being at the end of a very long list. Both these problems are easily solved, if the will to do so is there, by frequent weeding of the list (using "reverse standing-out") and by instructing one's mind to move faster through the list. >>
I agree, those are the two main problems with Simple Scanning, for me at least. But those remedies haven't solved the problems for me. As soon as a long list system reaches a tipping point, when I can't cycle through the whole list often enough, it becomes ineffective. I've definitely had the will and persistence to try these solutions. But when there is a burst of new work that causes my list to go beyond the tipping point, I can't circulate the whole list fast enough to maintain a strong intuition for it. When I lose that intuition, "standing out" (reverse or otherwise) doesn't work anymore. It becomes reactive and superficial. Regardless of how much weeding I may have done up till then, it always reaches this tipping point eventually, and then the system becomes ineffective. Instructing my mind to move faster through the list doesn't remedy the situation either; it just pulls me to the superficial easy tasks that give the illusion of progress, but this actually makes the situation worse by leaving the most important and difficult work untouched.
Serial No-List helped me address this problem, by keeping the less-pressing work in the background until I had enough bandwidth to pay attention to it. If I never actually got to this older stuff, it would just fade away naturally, without the need for weeding. That worked pretty well for me. I'm experimenting with some new ideas along the same lines right now.
<< my feeling is that Kanban is liable to result in an intellectual answer as to what one should do next, rather than an intuitive one >>
I've often seen that happen, both in Personal Kanban and Team Kanban. It's easy to overthink the rules, and this eventually creates more friction than flow. Best to keep it simple.
<< The two main problems with Simple Scanning are 1) the tendency of the list to expand beyond one's capacity to do everything, and b) urgent tasks being at the end of a very long list. Both these problems are easily solved, if the will to do so is there, by frequent weeding of the list (using "reverse standing-out") and by instructing one's mind to move faster through the list. >>
I agree, those are the two main problems with Simple Scanning, for me at least. But those remedies haven't solved the problems for me. As soon as a long list system reaches a tipping point, when I can't cycle through the whole list often enough, it becomes ineffective. I've definitely had the will and persistence to try these solutions. But when there is a burst of new work that causes my list to go beyond the tipping point, I can't circulate the whole list fast enough to maintain a strong intuition for it. When I lose that intuition, "standing out" (reverse or otherwise) doesn't work anymore. It becomes reactive and superficial. Regardless of how much weeding I may have done up till then, it always reaches this tipping point eventually, and then the system becomes ineffective. Instructing my mind to move faster through the list doesn't remedy the situation either; it just pulls me to the superficial easy tasks that give the illusion of progress, but this actually makes the situation worse by leaving the most important and difficult work untouched.
Serial No-List helped me address this problem, by keeping the less-pressing work in the background until I had enough bandwidth to pay attention to it. If I never actually got to this older stuff, it would just fade away naturally, without the need for weeding. That worked pretty well for me. I'm experimenting with some new ideas along the same lines right now.
December 30, 2020 at 5:12 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< But when there is a burst of new work that causes my list to go beyond the tipping point, I can't circulate the whole list fast enough to maintain a strong intuition for it. >>
No system is going to be able to get more work done by you than it's possible for you to do.
What a system can do though is help you to weed your work, and/or delegate it, and/or expand your organisation's capabilities, and/or get the education/training necessary to do your work more effectively.
<< But when there is a burst of new work that causes my list to go beyond the tipping point, I can't circulate the whole list fast enough to maintain a strong intuition for it. >>
No system is going to be able to get more work done by you than it's possible for you to do.
What a system can do though is help you to weed your work, and/or delegate it, and/or expand your organisation's capabilities, and/or get the education/training necessary to do your work more effectively.
December 30, 2020 at 9:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
... or help you figure out which work really needs to be done, and which can be dropped, even when the amount of demands and opportunities coming at you is often overwhelming...
December 30, 2020 at 20:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
The real question is not “What priority is this?” but “Should I be doing this at all?”
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/26/simplify.html
We can’t say no to our boss, we can’t say no to our friends, we can’t say no to our family, and worst of all we can’t say no to ourselves
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/22/the-best-time-management-tool.html
The real question is not “What priority is this?” but “Should I be doing this at all?”
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/26/simplify.html
We can’t say no to our boss, we can’t say no to our friends, we can’t say no to our family, and worst of all we can’t say no to ourselves
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/22/the-best-time-management-tool.html
December 30, 2020 at 21:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
This tread is interesting. I also notice with simple scanning when I have a lot tasks – maybe 150+ to do, I lose control as I cannot cycle through the list quick enough. Too much stands out ready to be done and I tend to get trapped doing the more recent tasks and older task get neglected.
However, I have found a solution that works very well for me which I have been using for a while. Now I am sure this blog contains every possible way of doing tasks so I expect what I’m writing might have been done before. It is inspired from a recent posting on doing tasks in blocks of 10 and has elements of a lot of the best ideas on this blog. This is what I have been doing which for me has solved the problem when there is a very large number of things to do: -
Divide the list into a new list and a backlog list at any point – could be last month or last week tasks. It does not really matter what point is picked.
Do a one-off scan of all the tasks on both lists and action all the quick & easy tasks first. This is to weed it out and prevent overwhelm. It also is satisfying. On new tasks coming in, clear the quick and easy ones straightaway. If an urgent task comes in, then do it as soon as possible or add to the diary to block out time to ensure done. Now to deal with the longer remaining tasks: -
Mark 4 of the most recent tasks on the new list, then 3 oldest on the new list, then 2 most recent on the backlog list and finally mark the oldest task in the backlog list.
Action these 10 tasks as much as possible and ensure at least something is done. Re-enter at the end of the list if recurring or more work to be done or you simply want to defer it as you don’t feel like doing it now. Repeat the process of picking another 10 tasks as above.
The process can apply to anything – a pile of post, emails, a handwritten list of tasks etc.
I think the main advantage is that work is done on 70% on new tasks and 30% on old tasks which would appear a sensible balance to keep everything moving and reviewed regularly enough. You can forget about the dilemma on what to do next as 10 tasks are automatically presented to you at a time. In the end all tasks will eventually get reviewed and some action taken in a logical timely manner. There is an element of randomizer as clearly certain tasks will fall through the net but will be picked up in the end.
There is still a strong use of intuition as urgent tasks will be picked up when they come in and there is still discretion to only do a very small amount of work on the 10 tasks in hand.
Sadly, we all have periods of time when more work is coming in that can be done so the lists just get longer and stress builds up. I find less then 100 tasks and everything is fine. 100+ and it gets tricky to manage. How is it best to deal with this? I think we naturally start to react by working quicker, delegating, or reducing commitments but of course that takes time and often out of our control. So by always focusing on 10 tasks at a time and knowing everything will get done/reviewed in the end should help reduce stress.
However, I have found a solution that works very well for me which I have been using for a while. Now I am sure this blog contains every possible way of doing tasks so I expect what I’m writing might have been done before. It is inspired from a recent posting on doing tasks in blocks of 10 and has elements of a lot of the best ideas on this blog. This is what I have been doing which for me has solved the problem when there is a very large number of things to do: -
Divide the list into a new list and a backlog list at any point – could be last month or last week tasks. It does not really matter what point is picked.
Do a one-off scan of all the tasks on both lists and action all the quick & easy tasks first. This is to weed it out and prevent overwhelm. It also is satisfying. On new tasks coming in, clear the quick and easy ones straightaway. If an urgent task comes in, then do it as soon as possible or add to the diary to block out time to ensure done. Now to deal with the longer remaining tasks: -
Mark 4 of the most recent tasks on the new list, then 3 oldest on the new list, then 2 most recent on the backlog list and finally mark the oldest task in the backlog list.
Action these 10 tasks as much as possible and ensure at least something is done. Re-enter at the end of the list if recurring or more work to be done or you simply want to defer it as you don’t feel like doing it now. Repeat the process of picking another 10 tasks as above.
The process can apply to anything – a pile of post, emails, a handwritten list of tasks etc.
I think the main advantage is that work is done on 70% on new tasks and 30% on old tasks which would appear a sensible balance to keep everything moving and reviewed regularly enough. You can forget about the dilemma on what to do next as 10 tasks are automatically presented to you at a time. In the end all tasks will eventually get reviewed and some action taken in a logical timely manner. There is an element of randomizer as clearly certain tasks will fall through the net but will be picked up in the end.
There is still a strong use of intuition as urgent tasks will be picked up when they come in and there is still discretion to only do a very small amount of work on the 10 tasks in hand.
Sadly, we all have periods of time when more work is coming in that can be done so the lists just get longer and stress builds up. I find less then 100 tasks and everything is fine. 100+ and it gets tricky to manage. How is it best to deal with this? I think we naturally start to react by working quicker, delegating, or reducing commitments but of course that takes time and often out of our control. So by always focusing on 10 tasks at a time and knowing everything will get done/reviewed in the end should help reduce stress.
December 31, 2020 at 11:35 |
MrDone
MrDone
Mark,
I completely agree with you that it is more important to decide whether something needs to be done at all, than deciding how to prioritize it.
And I already say “no”, deliberately and decisively, to many tasks and ideas and opportunities.
So the advice feels like a non sequiter. For me at least, it can take some time before an item is ready to be deleted, in exactly the same way that it can take some time before a task or idea is ready to be acted upon. Forcing the issue through an externally imposed discipline (“just say no”) ultimately creates resistance, in exactly the same way as forcing oneself to take action before something feels ready to be done creates resistance.
Whenever I have tried to accelerate the deletion process beyond what really feels ready to me, I have always regretted it. I end up tossing out ideas or opportunities or books or tools or papers or whatever, that later I really wish I had kept.
Sometimes I have beat myself up because I feel I can be too indecisive. But in the end, this is connected to one of my core strengths. I have an intuition of how the many indeterminate things on my list and in my mind will fit together in the long run, even if I can’t immediately identify it clearly, put it into words, or put it into action. I almost always get my best insights and my best results from letting things percolate in this way.
Culling items from my list before they feel ready to be culled disrupts the percolation process. It works best for me to let my intuition decide when things should be deleted.
So my own TM systems need some way to allow this to happen. Serial No List was probably the most effective at this - allowing these things to fade into the background and then bringing them back to my attention at the appropriate time, for new consideration and integration into my current reality. That works better for me than just culling them and expecting them to come back by themselves.
I completely agree with you that it is more important to decide whether something needs to be done at all, than deciding how to prioritize it.
And I already say “no”, deliberately and decisively, to many tasks and ideas and opportunities.
So the advice feels like a non sequiter. For me at least, it can take some time before an item is ready to be deleted, in exactly the same way that it can take some time before a task or idea is ready to be acted upon. Forcing the issue through an externally imposed discipline (“just say no”) ultimately creates resistance, in exactly the same way as forcing oneself to take action before something feels ready to be done creates resistance.
Whenever I have tried to accelerate the deletion process beyond what really feels ready to me, I have always regretted it. I end up tossing out ideas or opportunities or books or tools or papers or whatever, that later I really wish I had kept.
Sometimes I have beat myself up because I feel I can be too indecisive. But in the end, this is connected to one of my core strengths. I have an intuition of how the many indeterminate things on my list and in my mind will fit together in the long run, even if I can’t immediately identify it clearly, put it into words, or put it into action. I almost always get my best insights and my best results from letting things percolate in this way.
Culling items from my list before they feel ready to be culled disrupts the percolation process. It works best for me to let my intuition decide when things should be deleted.
So my own TM systems need some way to allow this to happen. Serial No List was probably the most effective at this - allowing these things to fade into the background and then bringing them back to my attention at the appropriate time, for new consideration and integration into my current reality. That works better for me than just culling them and expecting them to come back by themselves.
December 31, 2020 at 18:21 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I understood from the way you presented it ("when the amount of demands and opportunities coming at you is often overwhelming...") that the amount of work you have is a problem.
Now you are saying that it's essential to the way you work.
This sounds like a vaguely Zen concept: the non-problem problem.
I understood from the way you presented it ("when the amount of demands and opportunities coming at you is often overwhelming...") that the amount of work you have is a problem.
Now you are saying that it's essential to the way you work.
This sounds like a vaguely Zen concept: the non-problem problem.
December 31, 2020 at 18:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark -
It's only a problem when I am trying to use a TM system that requires frequent cycling of the whole list.
It simply takes me longer than it takes you, and maybe most people, before I feel intuitively ready to delete things. I used to think this was a problem in itself - and I'd beat myself up for my indecisiveness, overcommitment, unwillingness to say No, etc.
Ultimately trying to force more decisiveness, reduce commitments, and saying No did teach me some useful things, but also created a lot of internal conflict and turmoil. I get a lot of value from staying open to opportunities and ideas, and I create problems for myself when I cull them too early, before I've given them a chance to fully incubate. My intuition rebels against it.
I had a breakthrough when I started listening to my intuition about this, and designed my own TM system (Serial No List) that allowed my list to grow as long as it needed, and let the deletion process happen naturally. Basically, to treat the length of the list as a feature, not a bug.
The system was based on the idea of more frequent scanning of the items that are actively in play, and less frequent scanning of less active items. This allows the less active items to stay around longer, without clogging up the works. They are reviewed less frequently, and are deleted only when they feel ready for it. This has turned out to be a very important dynamic that fits better with my natural way of thinking and working.
The deletion does happen, but it tends to be in downtimes, in between times where I am more deeply engaged in some project, when I go and review those older items. When I've been away from them for awhile, and then see them anew with fresh eyes, I can delete swaths of them with no problem. And I also see how many of the items that remain still have nuggets of value, and seeds of a new idea or new project. But I never know ahead of time which ones will be which. They need that time to percolate.
It's helpful to "instruct my intuition" to say No more often, but I find I must still allow my intuition to make the choice. And then I must have an effective way to deal with the long list of items that results from that. It works fine -- just not with Simple Scanning or other systems that require frequent cycling of the whole list.
All best wishes for the new year!
It's only a problem when I am trying to use a TM system that requires frequent cycling of the whole list.
It simply takes me longer than it takes you, and maybe most people, before I feel intuitively ready to delete things. I used to think this was a problem in itself - and I'd beat myself up for my indecisiveness, overcommitment, unwillingness to say No, etc.
Ultimately trying to force more decisiveness, reduce commitments, and saying No did teach me some useful things, but also created a lot of internal conflict and turmoil. I get a lot of value from staying open to opportunities and ideas, and I create problems for myself when I cull them too early, before I've given them a chance to fully incubate. My intuition rebels against it.
I had a breakthrough when I started listening to my intuition about this, and designed my own TM system (Serial No List) that allowed my list to grow as long as it needed, and let the deletion process happen naturally. Basically, to treat the length of the list as a feature, not a bug.
The system was based on the idea of more frequent scanning of the items that are actively in play, and less frequent scanning of less active items. This allows the less active items to stay around longer, without clogging up the works. They are reviewed less frequently, and are deleted only when they feel ready for it. This has turned out to be a very important dynamic that fits better with my natural way of thinking and working.
The deletion does happen, but it tends to be in downtimes, in between times where I am more deeply engaged in some project, when I go and review those older items. When I've been away from them for awhile, and then see them anew with fresh eyes, I can delete swaths of them with no problem. And I also see how many of the items that remain still have nuggets of value, and seeds of a new idea or new project. But I never know ahead of time which ones will be which. They need that time to percolate.
It's helpful to "instruct my intuition" to say No more often, but I find I must still allow my intuition to make the choice. And then I must have an effective way to deal with the long list of items that results from that. It works fine -- just not with Simple Scanning or other systems that require frequent cycling of the whole list.
All best wishes for the new year!
January 1, 2021 at 22:18 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Happy new year to you!
January 1, 2021 at 23:11 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim wrote that serial no list "was based on the idea of more frequent scanning of the items that are actively in play, and less frequent scanning of less active items."
Seraphim, I'm curious if no question FVP would give you more of this. Doesn't this algorithm tend to emphasize the more recently entered, and thus those that are actively in play? It obviously isn't the same as Serial No List (or else you wouldn't have invented your own system), but does it give you 80% of what you need out of a system?
If Serial No List works great for you, awesome. Not trying to get to move from a more effective method to a less effective one. FVP just sounds a little more structure and algorithmic, whereas the giant backlog of serial no list would cause me some stress, personally. Perhaps not for you.
Seraphim, I'm curious if no question FVP would give you more of this. Doesn't this algorithm tend to emphasize the more recently entered, and thus those that are actively in play? It obviously isn't the same as Serial No List (or else you wouldn't have invented your own system), but does it give you 80% of what you need out of a system?
If Serial No List works great for you, awesome. Not trying to get to move from a more effective method to a less effective one. FVP just sounds a little more structure and algorithmic, whereas the giant backlog of serial no list would cause me some stress, personally. Perhaps not for you.
January 7, 2021 at 19:51 |
Cameron
Cameron
Cameron:
<< the giant backlog of serial no list would cause me some stress >>
I think it's a mistake to call it a backlog. The word "backlog" implies that it all ought to have been done. When dealing with long lists it's important to remember that one of the functions of a long list is a sifting process. I've been expounding this at slightly greater length on the concurrent thread "How to choose between FVP and 5/2?"
<< the giant backlog of serial no list would cause me some stress >>
I think it's a mistake to call it a backlog. The word "backlog" implies that it all ought to have been done. When dealing with long lists it's important to remember that one of the functions of a long list is a sifting process. I've been expounding this at slightly greater length on the concurrent thread "How to choose between FVP and 5/2?"
January 7, 2021 at 22:02 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Having read up a bit on the serial no list, I think the big difference is more one of pacing and the level of "mental attention" given to fading items. FVP leverages a long list for fairly consistent attention to the reified list and frequent opportunities for pruning. The Serial No List has the "pull from the mind" elements that results in deemphasizing the reified lists of the past, and thus, gives less general motivation or attention to them on a regular basis.
I think that Serial No List creates, or seems to create, a sort of "batch buffer" that enables periods of less direction and less intense obligation to be filled with a set of "batch reflections". Whereas FVP encourages the intermixing of that reflection on a constant basis.
In terms of computer science, these are both "generational" garbage collectors, but are tuned differently. Both allow small garbage collections to occur, and larger, more sweeping collections, but FVP is tuned to, I think, provide more consistent response time and less "total memory allocated" at the cost of a slightly higher immediate latency, whereas Serial No List reduces the immediate latency of allocation and action in the moment, at the cost of higher "total memory allocated" bounds and the potential for much larger "big garbage collection" moments.
Put more simply, FVP is more space efficient and less variable, but Serial No List is more immediately responsive but with higher variability and greater space/memory requirements.
I think that Serial No List creates, or seems to create, a sort of "batch buffer" that enables periods of less direction and less intense obligation to be filled with a set of "batch reflections". Whereas FVP encourages the intermixing of that reflection on a constant basis.
In terms of computer science, these are both "generational" garbage collectors, but are tuned differently. Both allow small garbage collections to occur, and larger, more sweeping collections, but FVP is tuned to, I think, provide more consistent response time and less "total memory allocated" at the cost of a slightly higher immediate latency, whereas Serial No List reduces the immediate latency of allocation and action in the moment, at the cost of higher "total memory allocated" bounds and the potential for much larger "big garbage collection" moments.
Put more simply, FVP is more space efficient and less variable, but Serial No List is more immediately responsive but with higher variability and greater space/memory requirements.
January 7, 2021 at 23:19 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Cameron:
<< I'm curious if no question FVP would give you more of this >>
The algorithms are very similar -- VERY similar.
The difference is primarily in the No-List nature of the TODAY page. The default behavior is to focus on whatever is top-of-mind (current and fresh NOW), rather than end-of-list (whatever was current and fresh last time I was working my list).
This makes a surprisingly large difference in the feel of the two systems. SNL feels a lot more like "No List", but falls back to the calm, reflective, seedbed feel of the long-list systems during downtimes -- whether brief downtimes during the day, or somewhat longer downtimes in between large projects.
The other difference is starting a new, fresh page every day. This tends to support the No-List feeling of the system. It also tends to give you all the most current work all on one page, you can see it in one glance, no page flipping. That helps a lot in focusing on what is most fresh.
You could get something very close to this by using FVP and starting the day on a new fresh page every day.
<< I'm curious if no question FVP would give you more of this >>
The algorithms are very similar -- VERY similar.
The difference is primarily in the No-List nature of the TODAY page. The default behavior is to focus on whatever is top-of-mind (current and fresh NOW), rather than end-of-list (whatever was current and fresh last time I was working my list).
This makes a surprisingly large difference in the feel of the two systems. SNL feels a lot more like "No List", but falls back to the calm, reflective, seedbed feel of the long-list systems during downtimes -- whether brief downtimes during the day, or somewhat longer downtimes in between large projects.
The other difference is starting a new, fresh page every day. This tends to support the No-List feeling of the system. It also tends to give you all the most current work all on one page, you can see it in one glance, no page flipping. That helps a lot in focusing on what is most fresh.
You could get something very close to this by using FVP and starting the day on a new fresh page every day.
January 15, 2021 at 21:50 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< I think it's a mistake to call it a backlog. >>
Yes, you nailed it. It's not a backlog, it's a seedbed waiting for the little plants to emerge and grow. :-)
<< I think it's a mistake to call it a backlog. >>
Yes, you nailed it. It's not a backlog, it's a seedbed waiting for the little plants to emerge and grow. :-)
January 15, 2021 at 21:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Aaron Hsu:
Interesting analysis and analogy!
I used FVP consistently for at least a year, and SNL even longer.
In practice, I think the biggest difference is that SNL puts a lot more focus on the things top-of-mind for that day. It constantly resets the focus of the list, based on wherever your intuition is taking you. FVP does the same thing, but I found this process to be faster and sharper with SNL.
The experience of reviewing older pages and deleting large swaths of items that finally stand out as ready to be deleted also happens with both systems. But this also seems to happen faster with SNL. FVP tended to generate more items that would stick around and resist getting deleted. I think SNL was faster at this because it tends to keep a sharper intuitive focus.
At least, that has been my experience -- I know it's not the same for everyone. :-)
Interesting analysis and analogy!
I used FVP consistently for at least a year, and SNL even longer.
In practice, I think the biggest difference is that SNL puts a lot more focus on the things top-of-mind for that day. It constantly resets the focus of the list, based on wherever your intuition is taking you. FVP does the same thing, but I found this process to be faster and sharper with SNL.
The experience of reviewing older pages and deleting large swaths of items that finally stand out as ready to be deleted also happens with both systems. But this also seems to happen faster with SNL. FVP tended to generate more items that would stick around and resist getting deleted. I think SNL was faster at this because it tends to keep a sharper intuitive focus.
At least, that has been my experience -- I know it's not the same for everyone. :-)
January 15, 2021 at 22:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim et al.
I'm currently experimenting with a new question for FVP which I'm hoping will put an entirely new light on things. I'm not sure yet of the precise wording or whether it works better with FVP or Simple Scanning. You might find it works well with Serial No List too. More soon.
I'm currently experimenting with a new question for FVP which I'm hoping will put an entirely new light on things. I'm not sure yet of the precise wording or whether it works better with FVP or Simple Scanning. You might find it works well with Serial No List too. More soon.
January 16, 2021 at 9:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark - That sounds like fun! Let us know the outcome!
January 16, 2021 at 18:39 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
So far so good. Been using it in various forms for quite a few days now and the results have been amazing. I'm at present finding it works best with simple scanning. The length of the list doesn't seem to be a problem - not that I can ever hope to compete with you on length of list!
Also, unlike the other questions I've used with long lists, it can be used as a stand-alone question without a list at all.
Now just waiting for it to pick "Write Blog Post".
So far so good. Been using it in various forms for quite a few days now and the results have been amazing. I'm at present finding it works best with simple scanning. The length of the list doesn't seem to be a problem - not that I can ever hope to compete with you on length of list!
Also, unlike the other questions I've used with long lists, it can be used as a stand-alone question without a list at all.
Now just waiting for it to pick "Write Blog Post".
January 17, 2021 at 9:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hey Siri, remind me to hit refresh every hour.
January 17, 2021 at 11:30 |
IanS
IanS
In short, ignoring everything else and focusing just on time management systems, PK is essentially just a long list system strategy with two specific rules that can be rephrased in terms of Mark's general approach:
1. Visualize your algorithm
2. Explicitly reduce the number of active tasks that you are doing "little and often" on.
In this respect, in many ways, any one PK implementation will be isomorphic or equivalent, potentially, to various systems Mark has presented over the years. The main difference is that PK encourages you to express the algorithm spatially, and to focus on how your system limits the amount of active work you are doing, whereas Mark's systems have a tendency to be more spatially efficient and abstract in their algorithmic expression, and some of his systems permit much more Work-in-Progress than would be advisable in a PK system, and the implication is that WIP limits would be enforced in a pre-selection stage at the "commitment" level.
So, let's take simple scanning. This is equivalent to a PK board with 3 columns: Backlog, Doing, and Done, with a WIP limit in Doing of 1, and an explicit policy allowing for an item to move from Doing back into the Backlog if desired, and another policy dictating how you go through the backlog.
Take FVP, this is equivalent to a PK board with 4 columns, Backlog, Ready, Doing, Done, with a WIP limit of 1 on Doing, and where your preselection moves items from Backlog into Ready. The same policies of allowing a Doing item to be moved back to the bottom of the backlog, and a policy on which item to pull from the Ready column, and where to start scanning the backlog, would all be three additional policies required to implement the rest of the FVP system.
The normal "beginner's" PK is equivalent to a system like FVP where things move from Backlog into a "Ready"/"Options" column, and then you work off of that column, usually with a WIP limit of 3 or the like on Doing, but without the allowance for putting something back into the backlog, and without requiring a specific scanning or actioning approach to the preselection items, and also with the expectation that the "Options" column can be longer lived than a single day.
I think the biggest difference between PK and the long list systems is really in their philosophical approach to visualization and how they approach the "little and often" strategy, but fundamentally, one can read many of Mark's systems in a PK context as specific columns with specific policies on each column relating to scanning, actioning, and iteration over the column. And many of the PK techniques can be read in Mark's context of long list systems simply as different algorithmic designs on actioning tasks.
Thus, in many ways, i think the two systems are equivalent, except that PK likes to emphasize spatial thinking and encourages completing items before taking on new items, whereas Mark's systems tend to encourage compact task representations and focuses more on "little and often" instead of the PK style of single tasking.