Discussion Forum > "Do it now" or "write it down"
I tried to send a link to another web address, but it wasn't accepted.
If you google "2-minute rule GTD", you'll find pro and con discussions of it.
As I remember, Mark Forster had a chapter on the rational mode and reactive mode in one of his books, (Do it Tomorrow?).
If you google "2-minute rule GTD", you'll find pro and con discussions of it.
As I remember, Mark Forster had a chapter on the rational mode and reactive mode in one of his books, (Do it Tomorrow?).
May 9, 2022 at 3:16 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
"Do it now" is the essential message of Steve Chandler's book "Time Warrior" (an overwrought title, IMO, but it's typical of Chandler and he does play on the difference between "worriers" and "warriors").
Here's a key quote from the book:
"Non-linear time management is a commitment to action in the present moment. It's looking at a task and choosing NOW or “not now.” If it's not now, it's got to be NEVER, or placed in a time capsule that has a spot on the calendar and therefore out of the mind. The mind must remain clear and empty of all future considerations. In non-linear time management there is no line extending from my mind into the future. No tapeworm of unfinished business coming out of my body."
(Show me another self-help book that uses a tapeworm as a metaphor, and ... we'll have two books. )
Most of the rest of the book is about setting a compelling future vision, using process goals, etc so relatively little in the way of tactics, more on setting strategic mindsets that pull rather than push. But for the day to day, handle emails once, do things as they come up, and let the vision guide you.
He also spends time (in this book and other of his books) on defining yourself as a creator vs a reactor. By creating your future, you know what you want to do in the day-to-day, and that helps you process those emails quickly, do it now, etc. Whereas with no vision, you are reacting to whatever happens to you with no idea as to how to shape circumstances to your advantage.
Sorry to hijack the thread.
Here's a key quote from the book:
"Non-linear time management is a commitment to action in the present moment. It's looking at a task and choosing NOW or “not now.” If it's not now, it's got to be NEVER, or placed in a time capsule that has a spot on the calendar and therefore out of the mind. The mind must remain clear and empty of all future considerations. In non-linear time management there is no line extending from my mind into the future. No tapeworm of unfinished business coming out of my body."
(Show me another self-help book that uses a tapeworm as a metaphor, and ... we'll have two books. )
Most of the rest of the book is about setting a compelling future vision, using process goals, etc so relatively little in the way of tactics, more on setting strategic mindsets that pull rather than push. But for the day to day, handle emails once, do things as they come up, and let the vision guide you.
He also spends time (in this book and other of his books) on defining yourself as a creator vs a reactor. By creating your future, you know what you want to do in the day-to-day, and that helps you process those emails quickly, do it now, etc. Whereas with no vision, you are reacting to whatever happens to you with no idea as to how to shape circumstances to your advantage.
Sorry to hijack the thread.
May 9, 2022 at 15:35 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
I've thought a lot on this topic. I think "if it needs to be done, do it now" is fine. I think "if it needs to be done NOW" is okay, provided you remember the keyword is NEEDS, not NOW. There are too many things you could do now that don't need doing. But I think your initial formulation is better:
"when I think of something I need to do, I do it right then if I can...or at least start it."
And then I would take all of these and swap out "need to be done" for a more broad category of "if I do this, it would improve things", which over time you could refine to focus your efforts on things that matter more. I say this because Need is a very limiting concept that closes your mind to possibilities like "what if I don't?", "is there a better way?"
"when I think of something I need to do, I do it right then if I can...or at least start it."
And then I would take all of these and swap out "need to be done" for a more broad category of "if I do this, it would improve things", which over time you could refine to focus your efforts on things that matter more. I say this because Need is a very limiting concept that closes your mind to possibilities like "what if I don't?", "is there a better way?"
May 9, 2022 at 15:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
There's a great metaphor in one of Mark's books (sorry I forget which one) about two mechanics operating a garage. One mechanic has a "no appointment necessary" policy and takes cars on a first-come-first-served basis. This seems to be similar to the "do it now" philosophy. Problem is, that this mechanic ends up totally overwhelmed and incapable of providing the service he promised - people end up having to wait too long for their cars to get finished. The second mechanic books appointments and defers larger jobs and organizes his time. He has a much easier time of it. So, while I like the idea of doing it now, it can't be applied universally, there are some things I shouldn't do now. On the other hand, I've recently found the NQ-FVP list got overwhelming for some reason, so I switched to Looman's "Time Surfing." This method is based on using intuition to decide what to do next. I love it, it's surprisingly effective for me. I also use a very robust contact and project management app called "cloze" which sends regular reminders, so nothing slips through the cracks.
May 9, 2022 at 16:08 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Mike, I read time Warrior a few years ago and totally forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to go back and read it. I remember thinking that some of his insights were quite unique.
Alan, I agree that "needs" is a very subjective term. At the heart of "needs" is the question: "is NOT doing this really a practical option?". Sure you can really "not" do a anything in life, but I'm talking practically here. I could "not" ever unload the dishwasher, but practically speaking, I do need to unload it.
Paul, I agree that doing it now doesn't work for some scenarios. It is not a comprehensive system—I don't think you can ever get away from a calendar for time-specific appointments. And yes, there are many things you can't do now. I guess the overall thought of do it now is that once you get in the groove, resistance drops to near zero for just about everything—as long as you have the energy. By the end of the night I might have the desire to keep "doing it now", but physically don't have the horsepower to continue. Hence, one of the cons of the system.
I have tried Time Surfing before, but not for longer than a couple of days. It is a great system. Perhaps I'm ready to try it again.
Thanks all for your thoughts. I appreciate it.
Alan, I agree that "needs" is a very subjective term. At the heart of "needs" is the question: "is NOT doing this really a practical option?". Sure you can really "not" do a anything in life, but I'm talking practically here. I could "not" ever unload the dishwasher, but practically speaking, I do need to unload it.
Paul, I agree that doing it now doesn't work for some scenarios. It is not a comprehensive system—I don't think you can ever get away from a calendar for time-specific appointments. And yes, there are many things you can't do now. I guess the overall thought of do it now is that once you get in the groove, resistance drops to near zero for just about everything—as long as you have the energy. By the end of the night I might have the desire to keep "doing it now", but physically don't have the horsepower to continue. Hence, one of the cons of the system.
I have tried Time Surfing before, but not for longer than a couple of days. It is a great system. Perhaps I'm ready to try it again.
Thanks all for your thoughts. I appreciate it.
May 9, 2022 at 16:57 |
Cameron
Cameron
When I'm working from my SS list, and something else comes up that I should or just want to do now, I immediately add it to the list and dot it, then do it. This approach results in the satisfaction of being able to cross it off the list. May seem silly, but I think it helps.
Another approach is to just do it, then add it to the list, dot it, and cross it out. Both of these 'silly' methods give one subtle strokes that are like momentum to help stay in the system.
Another approach is to just do it, then add it to the list, dot it, and cross it out. Both of these 'silly' methods give one subtle strokes that are like momentum to help stay in the system.
May 26, 2022 at 22:19 |
ubi
ubi
<< I've tried it, and although it is not as "efficient" as doing it later, it gives immediate results. >>
Henry Camp is one of my Theory of Constraints (ToC) heroes. He is a serial entrepreneur who uses ToC to purchase companies, double or triple their profits, then sell them at a very high return and move on to the next one. One of his mottos is "When in doubt, choose the less efficient route." It is counter-intuitive but has so many benefits: automatic reduction of WIP, sharper focus, bias to completion, etc.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-fitzhugh-camp-830ab13/
Henry Camp is one of my Theory of Constraints (ToC) heroes. He is a serial entrepreneur who uses ToC to purchase companies, double or triple their profits, then sell them at a very high return and move on to the next one. One of his mottos is "When in doubt, choose the less efficient route." It is counter-intuitive but has so many benefits: automatic reduction of WIP, sharper focus, bias to completion, etc.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-fitzhugh-camp-830ab13/
July 14, 2022 at 1:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
There was a great vogue for "Do it now" about the time I wrote my first book in 2000. I spent a page and a half debunking it.
What I said was that the problem is knowing what "it" is. It's great when this is obvious, e.g. fill up your car at the next petrol station when the yellow light comes on or don't dump your papers in a tray and forget about them when you come out of a meeting. But the rest of the time there's an infinite number of things which could be "it". And what are you supposed to do when you are in the middle of doing "it" now and you notice another "it" which needs doing now? My efforts to do it now always ended up with a queue of "its" waiting for their "now".
As for Henry Camp's "When in doubt choose the less efficient route", I have not the faintest idea what that is supposed to mean. He's a very successful man, so it must mean something. Maybe someone acquainted with the idea could explain?
What I said was that the problem is knowing what "it" is. It's great when this is obvious, e.g. fill up your car at the next petrol station when the yellow light comes on or don't dump your papers in a tray and forget about them when you come out of a meeting. But the rest of the time there's an infinite number of things which could be "it". And what are you supposed to do when you are in the middle of doing "it" now and you notice another "it" which needs doing now? My efforts to do it now always ended up with a queue of "its" waiting for their "now".
As for Henry Camp's "When in doubt choose the less efficient route", I have not the faintest idea what that is supposed to mean. He's a very successful man, so it must mean something. Maybe someone acquainted with the idea could explain?
July 14, 2022 at 9:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm wondering the same thing with respect to Henry Camp. The phrase is catchy, so I'd like to understand what is behind it.
July 14, 2022 at 9:53 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I'm wondering why it's "the less efficient route", not "the least efficient route". It implies that there's only two possible routes - but how likely is that?
Reminds me of Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken".
Reminds me of Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken".
July 14, 2022 at 10:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Henry Camp is referring to things like workflow and cost accounting.
For example, it might seem more efficient to pay $100 for an annual subscription rather than $10 per month for a monthly subscription. If you have been subscribing for years and are sure you will continue to get value, then the annual might be better. But if you are just starting out, the monthly is almost always better.
A time management example could be doing the dishes: there is an illusion of efficiency to save up the dishes till they are in a large enough batch, which you can then blast through all at once. This appears to be a more efficient use of the overhead time -- clearing space to wash, preparing the hot water and soap, etc. And then you can just focus on dishes for a while and get into a good flow. So it seems very efficient in terms of time spent per dish. On the other hand, keeping the batches very small is "less efficient" in terms of time spent per dish but reduces costs in many other ways -- reducing space needed for dirty dishes; reducing inventory of dishes required to serve the kitchen's needs; increasing the percentage of time that the kitchen is perfectly clean and ready for action; etc. In the long run, those things are much more valuable than the efficiencies of "time spent per dish".
"Time spent per dish" is similar to all the cost-accounting problems that arise when thinking about allocating fixed costs to individual units of work. It causes factory managers and IT managers (for example) to make all sorts of costing mistakes, dramatically reducing the throughput of value of their organizations.
"Little and often" -- even when applied to tasks with high overhead and high setup costs -- is a great example of this concept.
For example, it might seem more efficient to pay $100 for an annual subscription rather than $10 per month for a monthly subscription. If you have been subscribing for years and are sure you will continue to get value, then the annual might be better. But if you are just starting out, the monthly is almost always better.
A time management example could be doing the dishes: there is an illusion of efficiency to save up the dishes till they are in a large enough batch, which you can then blast through all at once. This appears to be a more efficient use of the overhead time -- clearing space to wash, preparing the hot water and soap, etc. And then you can just focus on dishes for a while and get into a good flow. So it seems very efficient in terms of time spent per dish. On the other hand, keeping the batches very small is "less efficient" in terms of time spent per dish but reduces costs in many other ways -- reducing space needed for dirty dishes; reducing inventory of dishes required to serve the kitchen's needs; increasing the percentage of time that the kitchen is perfectly clean and ready for action; etc. In the long run, those things are much more valuable than the efficiencies of "time spent per dish".
"Time spent per dish" is similar to all the cost-accounting problems that arise when thinking about allocating fixed costs to individual units of work. It causes factory managers and IT managers (for example) to make all sorts of costing mistakes, dramatically reducing the throughput of value of their organizations.
"Little and often" -- even when applied to tasks with high overhead and high setup costs -- is a great example of this concept.
July 16, 2022 at 2:19 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Interesting. I'm aware of this general approach in various fields, but has Henry Camp written anything on this that you can recommend I look at?
July 16, 2022 at 3:36 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I haven't seen anything he's written that specifically explains or expands on his motto. I've reached out to him to see if maybe he will comment on this thread.
Meanwhile, another thought occurs to me why I resist the idea of "do it now". I agree with Mark's assessment above -- << My efforts to do it now always ended up with a queue of "its" waiting for their "now". >>
But in addition to that, there is the problem of interdependency. I can't think of any of the demands on my time that are actually independent. All the various commitments, projects, and tasks work together to realize my goals (whether fully articulated goals, or just implicit goals). One of the problems with "just do it now" -- this treats each task as an isolated, independent event. This ignores all the different kinds of dependencies between tasks -- logical dependency, chronological dependency, etc.
Most importantly, treating each task independently ignores the Pareto effects of dealing with any kind of network of interdependent causes and effects -- there are only a few of those tasks that will have a major impact on realizing my goals.
So for me, by far the biggest benefit of curating a queue or list of tasks is to assess quickly and easily which of those tasks is going to have the largest impact. Mark's systems generally help awaken and train our intuition for identifying those tasks quickly and taking action on them.
The lists don't have to be complicated. People generally already have a strong intuition for where they need to focus.
So then, what is the appeal of "do it now"? I think the main appeal is how it prevents the buildup of WIP backlogs -- there is no buildup of task debt. There is a continuous bias to action, and if it works well, a bias to completion. But despite the appeal, and maybe even the initial success people may have with such a system, I think Mark's description really gets to the heart of why it isn't sustainable.
Meanwhile, another thought occurs to me why I resist the idea of "do it now". I agree with Mark's assessment above -- << My efforts to do it now always ended up with a queue of "its" waiting for their "now". >>
But in addition to that, there is the problem of interdependency. I can't think of any of the demands on my time that are actually independent. All the various commitments, projects, and tasks work together to realize my goals (whether fully articulated goals, or just implicit goals). One of the problems with "just do it now" -- this treats each task as an isolated, independent event. This ignores all the different kinds of dependencies between tasks -- logical dependency, chronological dependency, etc.
Most importantly, treating each task independently ignores the Pareto effects of dealing with any kind of network of interdependent causes and effects -- there are only a few of those tasks that will have a major impact on realizing my goals.
So for me, by far the biggest benefit of curating a queue or list of tasks is to assess quickly and easily which of those tasks is going to have the largest impact. Mark's systems generally help awaken and train our intuition for identifying those tasks quickly and taking action on them.
The lists don't have to be complicated. People generally already have a strong intuition for where they need to focus.
So then, what is the appeal of "do it now"? I think the main appeal is how it prevents the buildup of WIP backlogs -- there is no buildup of task debt. There is a continuous bias to action, and if it works well, a bias to completion. But despite the appeal, and maybe even the initial success people may have with such a system, I think Mark's description really gets to the heart of why it isn't sustainable.
July 16, 2022 at 18:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim asked me to explain my obtuse one-liners. This one I call Camp's Law: When in doubt, choose the less efficient route.
By the way, this is one of 33 one-liners we have published in one of my companies. They are all meant to snap us out of conventional patterns … when those patterns become traps. All have the characteristic of being counterintuitive, which is why the herd so readily accepts their opposites.
Camp's law relies of the pit of your stomach to provide a subtle but sometimes important warning - the kind we often tend to ignore, especially the smarter and more thoughtful among us. At first reading it seems like I'm against efficiency. That isn't true. However, I'm more for effectiveness. Effectiveness has a global bias, while efficiency’s bias is local. You act. Were you acting efficiently? Probably so, we are excellent at being efficient. Cameron warned us in his second pitfall at the top of this thread. People love to check off items on their list or clear emails. We also tend to put off the biggies. A lot to tackle. I don't have time now. I need help. I don't know something.
All my one-liners have a write up. Here's the one for Camp's Law:
http://www.dropbox.com/s/etudthbnqj7ha0b/01%20Camp%27s%20Law%20-%20When%20in%20doubt%20choose%20the%20less%20efficient%20route.pdf?dl=0
All efficiencies are measured by fractions – two things divided – how much per something. e.g. Miles per gallon. In almost all personal and company contexts, I suggest you focus on how much. If you feel compelled to divide by a “something’ then use Time. e.g. Net profit per year.
Please ask questions or poke holes!
By the way, this is one of 33 one-liners we have published in one of my companies. They are all meant to snap us out of conventional patterns … when those patterns become traps. All have the characteristic of being counterintuitive, which is why the herd so readily accepts their opposites.
Camp's law relies of the pit of your stomach to provide a subtle but sometimes important warning - the kind we often tend to ignore, especially the smarter and more thoughtful among us. At first reading it seems like I'm against efficiency. That isn't true. However, I'm more for effectiveness. Effectiveness has a global bias, while efficiency’s bias is local. You act. Were you acting efficiently? Probably so, we are excellent at being efficient. Cameron warned us in his second pitfall at the top of this thread. People love to check off items on their list or clear emails. We also tend to put off the biggies. A lot to tackle. I don't have time now. I need help. I don't know something.
All my one-liners have a write up. Here's the one for Camp's Law:
http://www.dropbox.com/s/etudthbnqj7ha0b/01%20Camp%27s%20Law%20-%20When%20in%20doubt%20choose%20the%20less%20efficient%20route.pdf?dl=0
All efficiencies are measured by fractions – two things divided – how much per something. e.g. Miles per gallon. In almost all personal and company contexts, I suggest you focus on how much. If you feel compelled to divide by a “something’ then use Time. e.g. Net profit per year.
Please ask questions or poke holes!
July 16, 2022 at 18:59 |
Henry Fitzhugh Camp
Henry Fitzhugh Camp
Henry:
<< Seraphim asked me to explain my obtuse one-liners. This one I call Camp's Law: When in doubt, choose the less efficient route. >>
Thanks for explaining. The difficulty I was finding was that I didn't know what context the one-liner related to. Now I can see that "efficient" is being contrasted with "effective" and it all becomes clear. And basically I agree with what you are saying.
On another thread we have been contrasting reading a book by (a) so many pages a day, or (b) picking it up often and reading as many or as few pages as you feel like each time. Method (a) is the more efficient, Method (b) is the more effective (for me anyway).
<< Seraphim asked me to explain my obtuse one-liners. This one I call Camp's Law: When in doubt, choose the less efficient route. >>
Thanks for explaining. The difficulty I was finding was that I didn't know what context the one-liner related to. Now I can see that "efficient" is being contrasted with "effective" and it all becomes clear. And basically I agree with what you are saying.
On another thread we have been contrasting reading a book by (a) so many pages a day, or (b) picking it up often and reading as many or as few pages as you feel like each time. Method (a) is the more efficient, Method (b) is the more effective (for me anyway).
July 18, 2022 at 15:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I really appreciate Henry coming in and giving us his thoughts in more detail! His included PDF was also quite helpful and even something of an inspiration.
One thing I can struggle with respect to trying to focus more on "how much" or effectiveness rather than efficiency is the competing needs of multiple "customers". Sometimes either I or my customers will want/need more than one thing out of a given thing, and that can put competing constraints on moving that thing forward.
One thing I can struggle with respect to trying to focus more on "how much" or effectiveness rather than efficiency is the competing needs of multiple "customers". Sometimes either I or my customers will want/need more than one thing out of a given thing, and that can put competing constraints on moving that thing forward.
July 19, 2022 at 5:15 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Cameron:
Sounds like No List FVP would be the "do it now" system you are looking for.
Sounds like No List FVP would be the "do it now" system you are looking for.
July 22, 2022 at 2:25 |
Christopher
Christopher
Two recent lessons for me related to this:
1) a coworker of mine said that he prefers do his tasks in the moment so they never reach his to-do list.
2) Dana K. White's system for decluttering (she's a blogger) is to pick up an item and either trash or donate right then to a bag or box, or walk it immediately to the place you'd look for it first. I've tried it, and although it is is not as "efficient" as doing it later, it gives immediate results.
So I've recently tried to "do it now" and it is a strong system. Three cons though:
1) sometimes you need to remember something and you can't do it now, but you really can't forget it. You need to write it down.
2) sometimes the truly urgent takes a back seat to the less urgent.
3) it requires a lot of energy.
A huge pro: I feel less like I'm not in to-do list debt, and that I'm paying off my to-do list balance every day. It is not true obviously, but I feel like I am.
Mark has often said "if it needs to be done, do it now". At other times I've seen him say "I tend to throw everything at my lists and let them sort it out". Would you say that the question is "if it needs to be done NOW, do it now"? I do like SS, and I do like "do it now" and I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but I sometimes don't know when it is appropriate to just take of it and not let it get to my to-do list, and when to put it on my to-do list and effectively "do it later".