Discussion Forum > The power of 3 x 3
Dear David
That's a very interesting idea, and a good variant on the principle of relative degrees of avoidance!
I'd be very interested to hear about how you get on with it over a period of time.
That's a very interesting idea, and a good variant on the principle of relative degrees of avoidance!
I'd be very interested to hear about how you get on with it over a period of time.
February 21, 2008 at 18:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Dave and Mark
Because I use the worst first method, I can't really comment on this except to warn against a possible negative outcome using this method. If your mind is set on avoiding the dreaded work, then you might find yourself subconsciously STRETCHING OUT the time you take on the lesser tasks to stall the time before having to eventually choose the avoided task....just a thought....(this is what I did to myself! LOL! For some strange reason, only worst first method works for me because I found myself subconsciously challenging my intelligence to get better and better at procrastinating yet make it seem like productivity, but not on the one thing I really wanted done! LOL! I finally caved and realized that the nag monster was usually worse than the task I was avoiding! LOL! Of course, I usually have to chunk it down into smaller units.
Of course, everyone isn't as stubborn as and foolish as me! LOL!
vickie
Because I use the worst first method, I can't really comment on this except to warn against a possible negative outcome using this method. If your mind is set on avoiding the dreaded work, then you might find yourself subconsciously STRETCHING OUT the time you take on the lesser tasks to stall the time before having to eventually choose the avoided task....just a thought....(this is what I did to myself! LOL! For some strange reason, only worst first method works for me because I found myself subconsciously challenging my intelligence to get better and better at procrastinating yet make it seem like productivity, but not on the one thing I really wanted done! LOL! I finally caved and realized that the nag monster was usually worse than the task I was avoiding! LOL! Of course, I usually have to chunk it down into smaller units.
Of course, everyone isn't as stubborn as and foolish as me! LOL!
vickie
February 22, 2008 at 16:42 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
The essential thing with any "easiest first" system is that it must be a closed list you are working with. Otherwise one will almost invariably find new easy tasks to do in the place of the difficult ones.
The advantage of "easiest first" is that the list gets smaller very quickly, which can be very motivating.
What I say with a closed list is that it doesn't matter what order you do the items as long as you do them all. So I advise people to use the order that suits them best personally.
The advantage of "easiest first" is that the list gets smaller very quickly, which can be very motivating.
What I say with a closed list is that it doesn't matter what order you do the items as long as you do them all. So I advise people to use the order that suits them best personally.
February 23, 2008 at 10:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In his 21 Feb posting, Mark F was kind enough to express interest in how I got on over a period of time with a method that involves arranging things to be done in 3x3 grids. The holiday period is a good moment to write about it.
Recent financial news illustrates why it's easier to comprehend items arranged in a grid rather than a list.
- There's a list of losers from the activities of Mr Madoff at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/a-list-those-exposed-to-losses-from-madoff/
- The FT has the same information at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fb3781a-cae0-11dd-87d7-000077b07658.html . (May need registration, but it's free.)
The information is much easier to absorb from the grid.
I've evolved my method for dealing with a pile of paper to
- taking nine items
- arranging them in a 3x3 grid
- dealing with any 3 of them, using the other 6 as differential procrastinators (they serve to make the 3 look relatively appealing)
- putting the other 6 aside for doing tomorrow
- repeating until the pile has been processed.
In this way, in a pile of 99 items, I would do
- 33 (admittedly no doubt the easiest ones) today, leaving 66
- 22 the next day, leaving 44
- 15 the next day, leaving 29
- 10 the next day, leaving 19
So I've got more than 80% of it done in just four days, and on no day have I had to do anything about the two thirds that looked relatively harder.
I have used the same idea with my task list. Items that aren't same day urgent get written in the task diary for tomorrow, as in DIT. Then when tomorrow comes, nine tasks get written out on a 3x3 grid. I just have to do 3 of them. If there are more than nine tasks for the day, as there always are, I'll wrote them out on further 3x3 grids.
The undone tasks will roll over to the next day, and become part of a backlog that will be supplemented by tomorrow's incoming tasks. That combined list will be put on further grids the following day and I'll process a third of the result. I'm not getting the whole list done, as DIT teaches; but it's easy to show that my average time to action things is 3 days. Since Mark F has noted that he once thought of calling his process Do It Next Week, I think that's an acceptable average.
I'm also doing the same thing with my email. This I can't display in a grid, but I can drag nine messages at a time into a folder, react to three of them, and put the remaining six aside for doing tomorrow.
There seems to be something magic about the number 9. I've tried, for example, putting items 3 at a time into a folder, and doing one of them; or 21 at a time, and doing 7 of them. Both variants still involve doing a third of the tasks, but they don't work as well for me as taking them nine at a time
I've also tried doing higher and lower percentages of the list in each pass, eg 10% of the tasks, or half of them. Again, 3 seems to be a powerful number. If you do a third of your tasks at any one time, then every task that you do can be compared with two other tasks that you can procrastinate. That seems disproportionately more powerful than comparing it with just one other task and doing half of them.
The system has the effect of smearing peaks and troughs of busyness over time. As a result I'm less liable to be overwhelmed, and less prone to declaring a backlog. In effect, I am running a 2-day backlog all the time.
The results of this experimentation been strongly positive. In the early years of starting my business, I worked crazy hours. I had no time for routine filing. (Or at least, that's what I believed at the time.) Although later I did have time, I had such a backlog that I couldn't see how to get going again. (I hadn't studied DIT on backlogs at that time.) As a result, I built up a decade's worth of unprocessed paper. Using the process described here, I've cleared the lot. I'm also completely up to date on all email, and nearly up to date on the task lists.
The main drawback is that I find the system so compulsive I've spent all day of every day in it and become rather tired. It's hard to disconnect from it. I'm glad that Christmas has allowed some time out to sleep.
Mark F has been posting about his new process. He mentions that it shares some of the qualities I've just described: the compelling nature, and the differential procrastination (getting some things done by finding put even less appetising things next to them). I'm looking forward to hearing what the system is.
Recent financial news illustrates why it's easier to comprehend items arranged in a grid rather than a list.
- There's a list of losers from the activities of Mr Madoff at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/a-list-those-exposed-to-losses-from-madoff/
- The FT has the same information at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fb3781a-cae0-11dd-87d7-000077b07658.html . (May need registration, but it's free.)
The information is much easier to absorb from the grid.
I've evolved my method for dealing with a pile of paper to
- taking nine items
- arranging them in a 3x3 grid
- dealing with any 3 of them, using the other 6 as differential procrastinators (they serve to make the 3 look relatively appealing)
- putting the other 6 aside for doing tomorrow
- repeating until the pile has been processed.
In this way, in a pile of 99 items, I would do
- 33 (admittedly no doubt the easiest ones) today, leaving 66
- 22 the next day, leaving 44
- 15 the next day, leaving 29
- 10 the next day, leaving 19
So I've got more than 80% of it done in just four days, and on no day have I had to do anything about the two thirds that looked relatively harder.
I have used the same idea with my task list. Items that aren't same day urgent get written in the task diary for tomorrow, as in DIT. Then when tomorrow comes, nine tasks get written out on a 3x3 grid. I just have to do 3 of them. If there are more than nine tasks for the day, as there always are, I'll wrote them out on further 3x3 grids.
The undone tasks will roll over to the next day, and become part of a backlog that will be supplemented by tomorrow's incoming tasks. That combined list will be put on further grids the following day and I'll process a third of the result. I'm not getting the whole list done, as DIT teaches; but it's easy to show that my average time to action things is 3 days. Since Mark F has noted that he once thought of calling his process Do It Next Week, I think that's an acceptable average.
I'm also doing the same thing with my email. This I can't display in a grid, but I can drag nine messages at a time into a folder, react to three of them, and put the remaining six aside for doing tomorrow.
There seems to be something magic about the number 9. I've tried, for example, putting items 3 at a time into a folder, and doing one of them; or 21 at a time, and doing 7 of them. Both variants still involve doing a third of the tasks, but they don't work as well for me as taking them nine at a time
I've also tried doing higher and lower percentages of the list in each pass, eg 10% of the tasks, or half of them. Again, 3 seems to be a powerful number. If you do a third of your tasks at any one time, then every task that you do can be compared with two other tasks that you can procrastinate. That seems disproportionately more powerful than comparing it with just one other task and doing half of them.
The system has the effect of smearing peaks and troughs of busyness over time. As a result I'm less liable to be overwhelmed, and less prone to declaring a backlog. In effect, I am running a 2-day backlog all the time.
The results of this experimentation been strongly positive. In the early years of starting my business, I worked crazy hours. I had no time for routine filing. (Or at least, that's what I believed at the time.) Although later I did have time, I had such a backlog that I couldn't see how to get going again. (I hadn't studied DIT on backlogs at that time.) As a result, I built up a decade's worth of unprocessed paper. Using the process described here, I've cleared the lot. I'm also completely up to date on all email, and nearly up to date on the task lists.
The main drawback is that I find the system so compulsive I've spent all day of every day in it and become rather tired. It's hard to disconnect from it. I'm glad that Christmas has allowed some time out to sleep.
Mark F has been posting about his new process. He mentions that it shares some of the qualities I've just described: the compelling nature, and the differential procrastination (getting some things done by finding put even less appetising things next to them). I'm looking forward to hearing what the system is.
December 29, 2008 at 23:35 |
David C
David C
David,
The timing of your detailed update is most interesting, what took you so long? The holiday period has afforded you the opportunity, I guess.
The timing of your detailed update is most interesting, what took you so long? The holiday period has afforded you the opportunity, I guess.
December 30, 2008 at 14:16 |
Bill
Bill
David:
This is most interesting. Although the mechanics of it are quite considerably different from my new system, you are undoubtedly using many of the same principles and getting similar results.
I've not actually tried to work your system as it would distract me from the testing of mine, but there's one thing I'm not quite clear about. You say that in your pile of 99 items you would deal with 33 that day, leaving 66 for the next day, and then you would continue to whittle down the pile each day by a third.
My question is: do you keep the items in each day distinct, or do you aggregate them? Your description of how you continue to work your system seems to suggest that you lump all outstanding items in together. But in that case if you are only doing a third of *all* the items every day, the list is going to be growing faster than you are dealing with it.
P.S. And yes, the chart of who's lost money because of Mr. Madoff is really interesting. I corrected your URL by the way as it wasn't working properly.
This is most interesting. Although the mechanics of it are quite considerably different from my new system, you are undoubtedly using many of the same principles and getting similar results.
I've not actually tried to work your system as it would distract me from the testing of mine, but there's one thing I'm not quite clear about. You say that in your pile of 99 items you would deal with 33 that day, leaving 66 for the next day, and then you would continue to whittle down the pile each day by a third.
My question is: do you keep the items in each day distinct, or do you aggregate them? Your description of how you continue to work your system seems to suggest that you lump all outstanding items in together. But in that case if you are only doing a third of *all* the items every day, the list is going to be growing faster than you are dealing with it.
P.S. And yes, the chart of who's lost money because of Mr. Madoff is really interesting. I corrected your URL by the way as it wasn't working properly.
December 30, 2008 at 16:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The list will initially grow, but so will the rate than I am dealing with it. The two will eventually catch up.
If I have tasks arriving at the rate of 30 a day
- on day 1 I will do 10, leaving 20 left over
- on day 2 I will have the 20 from day 1, plus 30 new ones, making 50; I will do 16 of them
- on day 3 I will have 34 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 64; I will do 21 of them
- on day 4 I will have 43 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 73; I will do 24 of them
- on day 5 I will have 49 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 79; I will do 26 of them
- on day 6 I will have 53 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 83; I will do 27 of them
- on day 7 I will have 56 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 86; I will do 28 of them
- on day 8 I will have 58 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 88; I will do 29 of them
- on day 9 I will have 59 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 89; I will do 29 of them
- on day 10 I will have 60 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 90; I will do 30 of them
- days 11 on are repeats of day 10.
If I have tasks arriving at the rate of 30 a day
- on day 1 I will do 10, leaving 20 left over
- on day 2 I will have the 20 from day 1, plus 30 new ones, making 50; I will do 16 of them
- on day 3 I will have 34 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 64; I will do 21 of them
- on day 4 I will have 43 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 73; I will do 24 of them
- on day 5 I will have 49 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 79; I will do 26 of them
- on day 6 I will have 53 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 83; I will do 27 of them
- on day 7 I will have 56 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 86; I will do 28 of them
- on day 8 I will have 58 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 88; I will do 29 of them
- on day 9 I will have 59 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 89; I will do 29 of them
- on day 10 I will have 60 left from before, plus 30 new ones, making 90; I will do 30 of them
- days 11 on are repeats of day 10.
December 30, 2008 at 23:06 |
David C
David C
Yes, I see. You're quite right of course - maths was never my strong point! But once the list has grown to its final size, don't you get a large number of tasks that don't move at all or move very slowly indeed?
I'm also interested in the mechanics of how you keep track of the tasks. You say that you write them in a 3x3 matrix. How do you decide which tasks go into the matrix? Presumably you are working off some sort of master list. I'd be interested to know how you do that.
If I were working a similar system, I guess I'd probably have one list containing all my tasks. Then I'd count off the first nine, do three of them. Then count off the next nine and do three of those. And continue that way round and round the whole list, and repeat the process round and round the list for as long as I had available time. I wouldn't tie myself to a day at all.
Or alternatively I'd count off nine and do three of them, then count off a further three, add them to the first nine, and do three of the resulting nine, and so on as above.
Either way the tasks at the beginning of the list get more and more difficult.
Does the way you work it resemble either of those?
I'm also interested in the mechanics of how you keep track of the tasks. You say that you write them in a 3x3 matrix. How do you decide which tasks go into the matrix? Presumably you are working off some sort of master list. I'd be interested to know how you do that.
If I were working a similar system, I guess I'd probably have one list containing all my tasks. Then I'd count off the first nine, do three of them. Then count off the next nine and do three of those. And continue that way round and round the whole list, and repeat the process round and round the list for as long as I had available time. I wouldn't tie myself to a day at all.
Or alternatively I'd count off nine and do three of them, then count off a further three, add them to the first nine, and do three of the resulting nine, and so on as above.
Either way the tasks at the beginning of the list get more and more difficult.
Does the way you work it resemble either of those?
December 30, 2008 at 23:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I've found the 3x3 grid method works well for clearing backlogs, as for example my decade of paper. If I can keep up to date with pure DIT, I prefer it.
I say that because to I do have a master list. That's heresy in DIT, a view I support. But in a backlog, you have by definition a collection of things to do that exceeds your capacity to do it in a day. You necessarily have a list of them, real or implicit.
I keep the list in a spreadsheet, because it already has the grid structure that makes the 3x3 layout easy. Things go from the list to the grid in order. I've experimented with both methods
- take nine items; do 3; replenish the 3 from the list of items waiting for attention
- take nine items; do 3; put the other six aside for later; take another nine items; and so on.
I've found that I get more done with the second method, but I'm mindful of the possibility that all this moving items on and off the list of 9 might be giving me the illusion of progress through busy work.
It's true that in principle the deferring of two thirds of the items to some future date will tend to lead to a backlog of the most difficult things. That effect is mitigated by a number of phenomena.
1 I show occasional flashes of self discipline and grip a few things that are nasty but important even though there are easier alternatives that I could do.
2 After a while I get fed up of the sight of items that have been on the list for a long time and take action to get rid of them.
3 If, for whatever reason, nine really unpleasant tasks have made their way to the top of the list, then sooner or later those nine will make their way onto the grid together and I'll have to do three of them.
4 Even if some items lurk on the list, procrastinated for a long time, they are still serving a useful purpose, in making other items look relatively appetising.
5 (This is the most powerful one.) The rate at which incoming tasks arrive varies randomly. At least occasionally a lull appears, during which substantially all effort is applied to the backlog.
Imagine for example I am in the steady state in my earlier example, with 30 things coming in each day and a backlog of 60.
Let the number of tasks coming in each day now drop to 10 per day for three days. Then
- on day 1 I will have the backlog of 60, plus 10 new tasks, making 70; I will process 23, leaving 47
- on day 2 I will have the backlog of 47, plus 10 new tasks, making 57; I will process 19, leaving 38
- on day 3 I will have the backlog of 38, plus 10 new tasks, making 48; I will process 16, leaving 32.
So a small dip in incoming work forces me, in this example, to halve the backlog. If that means addressing long-postponed issues, so be it.
As for not tying myself to a day in going through the list, I've tried that and don't like it. If I can't even process a third of a list during a day, never mind the whole thing, then I know I really am overloaded.
I say that because to I do have a master list. That's heresy in DIT, a view I support. But in a backlog, you have by definition a collection of things to do that exceeds your capacity to do it in a day. You necessarily have a list of them, real or implicit.
I keep the list in a spreadsheet, because it already has the grid structure that makes the 3x3 layout easy. Things go from the list to the grid in order. I've experimented with both methods
- take nine items; do 3; replenish the 3 from the list of items waiting for attention
- take nine items; do 3; put the other six aside for later; take another nine items; and so on.
I've found that I get more done with the second method, but I'm mindful of the possibility that all this moving items on and off the list of 9 might be giving me the illusion of progress through busy work.
It's true that in principle the deferring of two thirds of the items to some future date will tend to lead to a backlog of the most difficult things. That effect is mitigated by a number of phenomena.
1 I show occasional flashes of self discipline and grip a few things that are nasty but important even though there are easier alternatives that I could do.
2 After a while I get fed up of the sight of items that have been on the list for a long time and take action to get rid of them.
3 If, for whatever reason, nine really unpleasant tasks have made their way to the top of the list, then sooner or later those nine will make their way onto the grid together and I'll have to do three of them.
4 Even if some items lurk on the list, procrastinated for a long time, they are still serving a useful purpose, in making other items look relatively appetising.
5 (This is the most powerful one.) The rate at which incoming tasks arrive varies randomly. At least occasionally a lull appears, during which substantially all effort is applied to the backlog.
Imagine for example I am in the steady state in my earlier example, with 30 things coming in each day and a backlog of 60.
Let the number of tasks coming in each day now drop to 10 per day for three days. Then
- on day 1 I will have the backlog of 60, plus 10 new tasks, making 70; I will process 23, leaving 47
- on day 2 I will have the backlog of 47, plus 10 new tasks, making 57; I will process 19, leaving 38
- on day 3 I will have the backlog of 38, plus 10 new tasks, making 48; I will process 16, leaving 32.
So a small dip in incoming work forces me, in this example, to halve the backlog. If that means addressing long-postponed issues, so be it.
As for not tying myself to a day in going through the list, I've tried that and don't like it. If I can't even process a third of a list during a day, never mind the whole thing, then I know I really am overloaded.
December 31, 2008 at 13:05 |
David C
David C
Thanks for the clarification, David. One of the great advantages of my new system is that you don't need a master list. You can put the *whole* of your backlog of items into the system without fear of swamping it and it will automatically allocate the right priorities as you go along. Also if you take on too much it will automatically reject the unnecessary stuff. I'll be interested to see how you get on with it - if you can be persuaded to leave your 3x3s for long enough to try it out!
December 31, 2008 at 14:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Whilst trying to alleviate my frustration at waiting until next week for "the great unveliing" (or perhaps I was just procratinating!) I was reading through this post. I use a simlar approach to clearing my backlogs, which works for any type of backlog and doesn't take too much space. I use Microsoft OneNote, but a notepad would work just as well.
The idea is to list all of the items (briefly - one or two words) in lists of 25. 4 lists can be spread across one page. At the bottom of each list I have 5 lines which are Monday 5, Tuesday 5 to Friday 5. Each day I do any 5 items from the lists, highlight those items, and when I have completed the day's 5 items, highlight that line, e.g. Monday 5. If there are more than 4 lists I will normally only "commit" to the first 4. In OneNote those lists are all clearly visible on one page.
I rarely complete all 5 days (as I have more commitments later in the week) but that is not the point of the exercise, which is purely to reduce (and ultimately clear) a backlog. At the end of the week I delete all highlighted lines and move items up the lists so that I have a new set for the following week. I should stress that I use this primarily to clear backlogs as it is not a "complete all items" list system, but like the 3x3 method dealing with the easiest first creates momentum, and the use of the highlighter visually identifies progress, which for me (and probably many procrastinators) is one of my prime motivators. If I can see that I am making progress I want to carry on.
In one major filing backlog I started with 16 lists, having nearly 400 items to action and/or process, and I cleared a backlog significantly quicker than anything else I had tried. 5 items is a small commitment, but working on say 4 lists that clears 60 items in three days which I find is my normal weekly average.
The idea is to list all of the items (briefly - one or two words) in lists of 25. 4 lists can be spread across one page. At the bottom of each list I have 5 lines which are Monday 5, Tuesday 5 to Friday 5. Each day I do any 5 items from the lists, highlight those items, and when I have completed the day's 5 items, highlight that line, e.g. Monday 5. If there are more than 4 lists I will normally only "commit" to the first 4. In OneNote those lists are all clearly visible on one page.
I rarely complete all 5 days (as I have more commitments later in the week) but that is not the point of the exercise, which is purely to reduce (and ultimately clear) a backlog. At the end of the week I delete all highlighted lines and move items up the lists so that I have a new set for the following week. I should stress that I use this primarily to clear backlogs as it is not a "complete all items" list system, but like the 3x3 method dealing with the easiest first creates momentum, and the use of the highlighter visually identifies progress, which for me (and probably many procrastinators) is one of my prime motivators. If I can see that I am making progress I want to carry on.
In one major filing backlog I started with 16 lists, having nearly 400 items to action and/or process, and I cleared a backlog significantly quicker than anything else I had tried. 5 items is a small commitment, but working on say 4 lists that clears 60 items in three days which I find is my normal weekly average.
January 2, 2009 at 11:27 |
Christine B
Christine B
Some older time management books urge you to touch each piece of paper once. Put them in a pile, and deal with them, one at a time. Don't waste time shuffling them about, handling them multiple times.
That doesn't work for me. Sooner or later I hit one that I find difficult, because there's either a practical impediment or a psychological obstacle. Then I wind up stopping alogether, leaving the rest of the pile to, well, pile up.
MF wrote about the Procrastination Buster: http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/8/1/procrastination-buster.html. "One way to get yourself moving on a task you don’t want to do is to use it as an avoidance activity for a task you are trying to avoid even more!" I've found a way of doing this that is proving surprisingly effective.
Take the top three papers from a pile. Put them, in a row, not overlapping, on a desk or table, in the order in which they are doable: easier to do on the left, harder on the right. Repeat the process twice, so that you have nine papers, arranged in a 3x3 grid. The three on the left edge are ones you reckon are easier to do, at least relatively; and the other six are all less palatable. I find it easy to grab one of the three and act on it, filing it or replying to it or doing whatever needs to be done.
After you've dealt with two or three papers in this way, pick another two or three from the pile to replenish the 3x3 grid and re-sort it so that the least resisted ones are on the left. Repeat ad nauseam.
I find that the fact that at any moment they are accompanied by six or seven that are even less palatable makes processing the two or three papers that are least unappetising seem almost appealing. And once that has provoked me into dealing with a few of them, the momentum carries me through the more irksome ones . I'm whistling through paper backlogs this way.
I'm extending the same idea to my daily will-do list. I write it out the tasks as a 3x3 grid and using that to help me break the resistance to doing one or two of them. A grid seems to get done in my hands much faster than a linear list does.