Task switiching (not necessarily context)

[Tom_Hagen]

As we know the core of GTD are next actions. These are the nearest, physical actions that can be done asap considering context, time, energy i priority. Concerning granularity lots of people recommend "size" which allows done task in one sitting. This seems to be reasonable because there are lots of projects which are big and tedious. So everyday one can complete several such a tasks until projects are done. Allen if I am right calls it "fooling yourself". In opposition to this SCRUM emphasizes the need to implement one project at the same time arguing that switching task involves mental and time costs. According to this if you have several hours of free time you should be doing one project even if next action is really big. It also seems reasonable. Of course big next action may cause discouragement and lead to procrastination. What is your opinion? Shall we "foolish ourselves", divide big projects into small steps, switching tasks even for the price of efficiency or shall we stick to project and try to force ourselves to complete big tasks?

 

[Oogiem]

What is your opinion? Shall we "foolish ourselves", divide big projects into small steps, switching tasks even for the price of efficiency or shall we stick to project and try to force ourselves to complete big tasks?

First off I disagree that it is fooling ourselves to divide big projects into small steps.

The answer whether to divide projects or not is It depends. Some people need the small granularity and some don't. Some projects lend themselves to splitting and some don't.

What is key is consider the cost of both task switching and the cost of task focus. There are costs and benefits to both approaches and you may need to use both of them at different times on the same project or on different projects.

personally, I tend to split tasks into logical discrete steps that stay in a context. I have had individual next actions that took several months or even years to complete but it was still the next logical step in the project.

On occasions I have also taken big huge long tasks and split them up so that my next action was "Work for 30 minutes on X" because I needed that small time focus to move the project forward.

Also, for me, I can switch projects faster and with less mental effort and time wasted compared to the cost to switch contexts. I'd rather stay in a context until it doesn't make sense working on actions from that context rather than start on a project and then just continue in that project switching contexts willy nilly as the actions come up.

 

[Longstreet]

Think of a next action for a major project as a bookmark. It is to help you get the ball rolling. Once you have completed it and need to do focused, deep work on that major project, keep going. Block time on your calendar for this focused, deep work. When your time block is done and there is still more to do on that project, then do not leave the time block until you have identified the next action. This next action will be your new bookmark.

Don't worry about context switching here in this deep work. Just focus on the project and move forward!

 

[Gardener]

Shall we "foolish ourselves", divide big projects into small steps, switching tasks even for the price of efficiency or shall we stick to project and try to force ourselves to complete big tasks?

I don't see that you have to choose one or the other.

It seems reasonable to stick with one project, pre-organize its large tasks into smaller steps, and then just keep on working on those smaller steps without switching away from the project. As long as you're inside the project, you're reducing the cost of the task switching.

For example, I'm still working on that novel. It's about three-quarters done but it has too many loose ends. Right now, I'm going through the manuscript so far, existing-chapter by existing-chapter, cleaning up continuity errors and fixing holes and writing missing scenes.

I could call this all one task ("Get the manuscript so far to near-first-draft quality.")
I could divide it into chapters. ("Clean up first chapter." "Clean up second chapter.")
I could divide it into scenes. ("Clean up first scene of first chapter.")
I could just take it bite by bite. ("Size the next bite. Clean it up.")

I'm doing the last--not that I'm phrasing it that way, but I am thinking of it in units that allow me to periodically experience "finished". I just finished the bonfire scene. I'll write--thus "finish"--a piece of glue between the previous scene and the bonfire scene. That will mean I've finished the fourth chapter. Yay!

So I experience those as individual tasks with the satisfaction of finishing, but all the while, my mind is "inside" the novel--I don't have to dump the whole thing and switch my thoughts to a different personal projects. I do of course have to dump my thoughts every day and switch my thoughts to work, but, well, paychecks are good. But at work I can still try really hard to stay "inside" one project as long as I can.

 

[John Ismyname]

I do not see a contradiction here. A project consists of a collection of tasks. I'm a believer in sub-dividing these tasks into what can be accomplished in ideally "one sitting" or, at the very least, a single work day. At best, projects get behind schedule when there is not this daily progress. At worst, a workday goes past where nothing is done on it, and the project 'gathers dust' as nuances are forgotten. When this happens, the project is going "in reverse".

SCRUM addresses this with the sprint concept - the project team drops everything else and focuses on their tasks at hand for the sprint session and then does other thing until the next sprint session.

The former is a continuous marathon. The latter are broken-up sprints. Neither is right nor wrong, the best methodology depends on the project, the team members, and the comfort with the methodology.

 

[frank F]

To me this is overthinking it. do what works best for you. Personally, when two things are of similar importance, I do what I feel more like doing. Motivation is key. If one thing takes more time or even effort, I will certainly do this first once I feel the slightest like doing it, so it gets done. If I am entangled in a project, I will usually try to get as much done of this as possible - I agree to a certain point that better to keep your focus on one thing, rather than jump around.

 

[Gardener]

To me this is overthinking it. do what works best for you. Personally, when two things are of similar importance, I do what I feel more like doing. Motivation is key. If one thing takes more time or even effort, I will certainly do this first once I feel the slightest like doing it, so it gets done. If I am entangled in a project, I will usually try to get as much done of this as possible - I agree to a certain point that better to keep your focus on one thing, rather than jump around.

I agree that motivation is essential, but recently (the past couple of years) I've found that switching from project to project based on what I feel like doing ends up being really unproductive for me. Lately I've tried to bribe myself--if I stick with Project A, I let myself do whatever I feel like within Project A.

For example, I really should stop polishing that method and go on to write new code, but I don't wanna--I want to manicure my code a little more. So I let myself do that. I really should write a scene that fills that gaping hole in my novel, but I don't wanna--I want to write that fun scene that I imagined, the one will almost certainly get thrown away. So I let myself do that.

Staying inside the project seems to somehow, in ways that I can't see with complete clarity, end up with more getting done, even if the price of staying inside is this sort of seemingly-time-wasting self-bribery.

 

[bcmyers2112]

I think the question is not so much "task switching" as whether it is best to focus on a particular project for hours or to work on a series of brief tasks associated with different projects. I think the difficulty in trying to come up with a definitive answer to this question is that it depends on the nature of the projects on your plate.

It is common for me to have projects where the only available next action is to make a phone call, send an email or have a quick discussion with someone, putting the ball in their court. I can't just make one call or send one email and then decide, "Nope, not going to switch projects. I can't do anything else for the rest of the day -- or week -- or month -- until so-and-so gets back to me." I'd be fired from my job and my wife would be livid with me among other negative consequences, and rightly so.

The GTD methodology makes it possible for me to spend an hour making 20 phone calls about 20 separate projects with a clear head and laser-like focus. As long as I am giving my full attention to the thing I am doing because I have full confidence that it's what I *should* be doing in that moment, I don't care whether that activity takes 5 minutes or 12 hours.

 

[Longstreet]

I think the question is not so much "task switching" as whether it is best to focus on a particular project for hours or to work on a series of brief tasks associated with different projects. I think the difficulty in trying to come up with a definitive answer to this question is that it depends on the nature of the projects on your plate.

It is common for me to have projects where the only available next action is to make a phone call, send an email or have a quick discussion with someone, putting the ball in their court. I can't just make one call or send one email and then decide, "Nope, not going to switch projects. I can't do anything else for the rest of the day -- or week -- or month -- until so-and-so gets back to me." I'd be fired from my job and my wife would be livid with me among other negative consequences, and rightly so.

The GTD methodology makes it possible for me to spend an hour making 20 phone calls about 20 separate projects with a clear head and laser-like focus. As long as I am giving my full attention to the thing I am doing because I have full confidence that it's what I *should* be doing in that moment, I don't care whether that activity takes 5 minutes or 12 hours.

It all comes down to the nature of your work. And the type of projects. I have several that I need to maintain focus on and not simply go across a calls list on multiple projects. For my type of work, this dilutes focus and stymies deep work and focus that I need.

 

[bcmyers2112]

I have several that I need to maintain focus on and not simply go across a calls list on multiple projects.

So do I, sometimes. And when it makes sense to maintain focus on a single project -- or even a single action -- for several hours, I do so. This is why I don't look for a definitive answer about whether it makes sense to stay with one project for long periods of time. I let the nature of the work on my plate guide that decision.

 

[Longstreet]

So do I, sometimes. And when it makes sense to maintain focus on a single project -- or even a single action -- for several hours, I do so. This is why I don't look for a definitive answer about whether it makes sense to stay with one project for long periods of time. I let the nature of the work on my plate guide that decision.

Agreed! The majority of my projects require deep focus and thinking, which is why I schedule multiple time blocks on my calendar for this type of work. Cranking widgets here just doesn't work.

 

[Longstreet]

So do I, sometimes. And when it makes sense to maintain focus on a single project -- or even a single action -- for several hours, I do so. This is why I don't look for a definitive answer about whether it makes sense to stay with one project for long periods of time. I let the nature of the work on my plate guide that decision.

I was not referring to your work at all. Calm down. I never said your work was not vitally important.

 

[Longstreet]

@bcmyers2112: You must have deleted your post here. This is what I received in an email.

"
Getting Things Done® Forums
Longstreet, bcmyers2112 replied to a thread you are watching at Getting Things Done® Forums.

Task switiching (not necessarily context)

Longstreet
Cranking widgets here just doesn't work.
I'm sure this is unintentional but referring to some of my work as "cranking widgets" has unfair connotations. Whether you meant to or not, what you're implying is that a list of phone calls is thoughtless work. A lot of my work involves thought, but it's thinking on my feet. It took me a lot of years of hard work to develop the expertise necessary to be able to intelligently navigate discussions with prospects and clients on the phone and in person and to quickly formulate plans of action to move deals forward. Just because an action is brief doesn't mean it doesn't require expertise.

I do sometimes do the sort of work that I think you'd refer to as "deep work." I'm currently embarking on a project to write and illustrate my own comic-book, with a hope that someday I may be able to change careers and do something creative as a living. That involves sometimes lengthy, unbroken stretches of time at the computer or drawing table intensely concentrating in an attempt to translate an idea in my head into a finished creative work.

Yet I don't think of the other work I do where a 5-minute in-person conversation or a quick phone call is the next action to drive a project forward as being "shallow work." It's a different kind of thought - in some cases more strenuous because I have to respond in the moment.

Again, I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest any of my work is a "lower form" than yours but I'm respectfully asking you to consider the implications of calling something I do "cranking widgets."
View This Thread Unread Watched Threads
Please do not reply to this email. You must visit Getting Things Done® Forums to reply.

This message was sent to you because you opted to watch the thread Task switiching (not necessarily context) at Getting Things Done® Forums with email notification of new replies. You will not receive any further emails about this thread until you have read the new messages.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you may disable emails from this thread or disable all emails.

http://forum.gettingthingsdone.com/

As I stated, I was NOT referring to your work nor your expertise whatsoever. I simply meant that for many of MY PROJECTS, cranking widgets is not the approach that works. That comment had nothing to do with your work. Seriously. Implications? Oh my.

 

[bcmyers2112]

You must have deleted your post here.

I did indeed delete it in the hope (a vain hope, it seems) of avoiding this sort of response and a distraction from the topic at hand. While I am comfortable that what I wrote was reasonable, if I had wanted to pursue this I should have done so via private message.

@Tom_Hagen, I apologize for detracting from the discussion you wished to have. I will refrain from posting anything further in this thread and I hope somewhere in the responses (whether mine or someone else's) you've found something helpful.

 

[Longstreet]

And I will stop posting as well.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Upon further thought, I feel I need to apologize to @Longstreet. I overreacted to what he said.

@Longstreet, I am sorry for what I posted. To everyone else, I am sorry for derailing this thread.

 

[Longstreet]

Upon further thought, I feel I need to apologize to @Longstreet. I overreacted to what he said.

@Longstreet, I am sorry for what I posted. To everyone else, I am sorry for derailing this thread.

No apology is necessary. We all misinterpret what others write and we think we know what is on their mind. We do not. You are fine, my friend. But thanks for thinking of me! Take care.