That's part of my problem. Having the selection be mechanical doesn't help me... What if a call really needs to be made, but I'm not near a phone? If the call's really important, shouldn't I find a phone? Of course I should! If the call's important but repels me, without something screaming at me to make the call I'm not going to find the phone; I'm going to use the excuse that I'm not near a phone to not make the call!andmor said:
Bogged down in minutia (long)
- Thread starter jkgrossi
- Start date
Re: Minutia
Yes, but is "Change Direct Deposit info" really a NA as defined by GTD? Something that simple can easily turn into a GTD "Project". My point was "is that really necessary?". I took your post to mean "no, it's not". But then is it really GTD? I agree with you that I don't need to be as finely grained as my example suggests. I was just trying to illustrate my point :wink:.
I couldn't agree more, and that was my point (although you said it much better than I did!)
Now that we've got that sorted out, what's your take on priorities?
Scott_L_Lewis said:
Yes, but is "Change Direct Deposit info" really a NA as defined by GTD? Something that simple can easily turn into a GTD "Project". My point was "is that really necessary?". I took your post to mean "no, it's not". But then is it really GTD? I agree with you that I don't need to be as finely grained as my example suggests. I was just trying to illustrate my point :wink:.
Scott_L_Lewis said:
I couldn't agree more, and that was my point (although you said it much better than I did!)
Now that we've got that sorted out, what's your take on priorities?
Anonymous said:
Actually, my take on GTD was that anything on your calendar was non-negotiable! This does address the problem, however. For some stupid reason, I found this to clutter my calendar, and the non-check ability robbed me of Smith's "psychic high" :shock: ...
Stupid, I know, but
Anonymous said:
Actually, my take on GTD was that anything on your calendar was non-negotiable! This does address the problem, however. For some stupid reason, I found this to clutter my calendar, and the non-check ability robbed me of Smith's "psychic high" :shock: ...
Stupid, I know, but for some reason it's important to me!
Thanks, everyone!
I just wanted to thank everyone for their contributions! That's the great thing about a board like this - it's an open forum for people to share ideas and help one another! I know that your posts have benefited me, and I hope all of you feel the same to some degree. Thanks!
Jim
I just wanted to thank everyone for their contributions! That's the great thing about a board like this - it's an open forum for people to share ideas and help one another! I know that your posts have benefited me, and I hope all of you feel the same to some degree. Thanks!
Jim
A
Anonymous
Guest
Should I write down 2 minute 'next actions'?
One way to reduce the number of next actions is to not write down the 2minute actions, which can be done right away. Let's say I have a 15 minute time window open up and I am at my computer. I can then look at the list of actions under @computer and pick one (BTW there can be a group of actions tied to a desired outcome but there will be only one NEXT action in this group!). I will execute that action. If my next action takes less than a couple of minutes, I can just go ahead and execute that without writing it down. In this manner I can go through a series of actions and before my time is up, I should just write down what my NEXT action should be in that context.
One of the basics of what DA says (my interpretation) is that our thoughts should be focused on only the next action. Do not think about the actions that come later. So even if we don't have a list/plan of next actions, after executing a task we can simply ask the question 'what place/context am I at' AND 'what is my next action' and proceed with it. If there is a list of next actions to look up from, fine. If not just answer the questions and proceed.
If the action list is there in your head, get it on paper - knowing that only one action in a project will be the next action. If the action list is not there in your head, then don't bother to think about them just to write them down.
One way to reduce the number of next actions is to not write down the 2minute actions, which can be done right away. Let's say I have a 15 minute time window open up and I am at my computer. I can then look at the list of actions under @computer and pick one (BTW there can be a group of actions tied to a desired outcome but there will be only one NEXT action in this group!). I will execute that action. If my next action takes less than a couple of minutes, I can just go ahead and execute that without writing it down. In this manner I can go through a series of actions and before my time is up, I should just write down what my NEXT action should be in that context.
One of the basics of what DA says (my interpretation) is that our thoughts should be focused on only the next action. Do not think about the actions that come later. So even if we don't have a list/plan of next actions, after executing a task we can simply ask the question 'what place/context am I at' AND 'what is my next action' and proceed with it. If there is a list of next actions to look up from, fine. If not just answer the questions and proceed.
If the action list is there in your head, get it on paper - knowing that only one action in a project will be the next action. If the action list is not there in your head, then don't bother to think about them just to write them down.
I
intrigueme@aol.com
Guest
...another 2 cents....
(at this rate, if we all pool these, we can buy a cup of Starbucks' coffee...)
I believe the bottom-line OUTCOME that David is shooting for is to get us all 100% purely IN "The Present Moment." He alludes to this in some of his writings. In Eastern Philosophy, it's the concept known as "Satori" - where thought and action become one and the same.
I believe the desired outcome is to use "GTD" to be totally GENUINE with ourselves. If that is true, then using our minds to "over-think" the lists is almost as bad as using our minds to "remember" the stuff instead of putting it on a list. As long as we are "carrying this stuff around in our heads" we will NEVER BE 100% in the PRESENT MOMENT. No worries, no concerns, no "whirring mind." Just "be" (or "do" in this case...). Once the worrisome mind engages, you lose that 100% presence.
As long as we carry "stuff" around - part of your attention will always BE paying attention to it. "What to do? When to do? Is this the right moment?" etc...It will never be 100% totally honest/genuine. Which means we have to totally TRUST oursleves (or the system). If we capture everything that is on our minds, up to that last second, as a result - we will then be a 100% totally GENUINE, AUTHENTIC Human Being in the present. Not in our own internal "self-created" worlds.
To end this latest "2 cents" on a lighter note - it struck me while typing this that the title of the book is "Getting Things Done" (past tense of "do") not, "Getting Things Thought" (past tense of, well, you know....lol)
(at this rate, if we all pool these, we can buy a cup of Starbucks' coffee...)
I believe the bottom-line OUTCOME that David is shooting for is to get us all 100% purely IN "The Present Moment." He alludes to this in some of his writings. In Eastern Philosophy, it's the concept known as "Satori" - where thought and action become one and the same.
I believe the desired outcome is to use "GTD" to be totally GENUINE with ourselves. If that is true, then using our minds to "over-think" the lists is almost as bad as using our minds to "remember" the stuff instead of putting it on a list. As long as we are "carrying this stuff around in our heads" we will NEVER BE 100% in the PRESENT MOMENT. No worries, no concerns, no "whirring mind." Just "be" (or "do" in this case...). Once the worrisome mind engages, you lose that 100% presence.
As long as we carry "stuff" around - part of your attention will always BE paying attention to it. "What to do? When to do? Is this the right moment?" etc...It will never be 100% totally honest/genuine. Which means we have to totally TRUST oursleves (or the system). If we capture everything that is on our minds, up to that last second, as a result - we will then be a 100% totally GENUINE, AUTHENTIC Human Being in the present. Not in our own internal "self-created" worlds.
To end this latest "2 cents" on a lighter note - it struck me while typing this that the title of the book is "Getting Things Done" (past tense of "do") not, "Getting Things Thought" (past tense of, well, you know....lol)
I
intrigueme@aol.com
Guest
Addendum/Clarification
(or one more cent if you will)
What I was trying to communicate in the above post is the concept of "Direct Experience." When you FEEL the sun on your skin, and go "ooh, ahh" - that's the Direct Experience.
The minute you THINK "This feels warm" - you're no longer fully present in the Direct Experience. Your present in the THOUGHT about the Direct Experience - which happened one second earlier.
So, the "GTD System" is about capturing our THOUGHTS about the DOING (or the Direct Experiences). It won't "DO" anything, or "MAKE" actions happen. That's also why they're called "Next Actions" - they're what our mind thinks the next "Direct Experience" is going to be like; but we'll never know 100% of what it REALLY is until we're doing it. And then, our feelings about what the "next action" after that is may change.
EXAMPLE: Ever have an emotionally intense conversation with a loved one? Even if you "list all the Next Actions" about what you're going to say to that person, then what they'll say to you, then your 'next action' back...it NEVER turns out exactly the way you plan it! You never know - until you are in the Direct Experience (aka - Present Moment) And, at some point in that; you're probably no longer "thinking" about what's going on - you're just "doing."
(That's also why we shouldn't make it TOO complicated, or multi-tiered, because the time spent on that is time taking us away from "Doing" or "Being" in the Present Moment)
So, "GTD" is the "parking garage" for our THOUGHTS about future "DOING." It's NOT the "DOING." It's keeps us from worrying about putting money in the meter every hour, so we can be 100% "fully present" in the moment of the play/movie/musical.
Sheesh, I hope all that made sense...(lol)
(or one more cent if you will)
What I was trying to communicate in the above post is the concept of "Direct Experience." When you FEEL the sun on your skin, and go "ooh, ahh" - that's the Direct Experience.
The minute you THINK "This feels warm" - you're no longer fully present in the Direct Experience. Your present in the THOUGHT about the Direct Experience - which happened one second earlier.
So, the "GTD System" is about capturing our THOUGHTS about the DOING (or the Direct Experiences). It won't "DO" anything, or "MAKE" actions happen. That's also why they're called "Next Actions" - they're what our mind thinks the next "Direct Experience" is going to be like; but we'll never know 100% of what it REALLY is until we're doing it. And then, our feelings about what the "next action" after that is may change.
EXAMPLE: Ever have an emotionally intense conversation with a loved one? Even if you "list all the Next Actions" about what you're going to say to that person, then what they'll say to you, then your 'next action' back...it NEVER turns out exactly the way you plan it! You never know - until you are in the Direct Experience (aka - Present Moment) And, at some point in that; you're probably no longer "thinking" about what's going on - you're just "doing."
(That's also why we shouldn't make it TOO complicated, or multi-tiered, because the time spent on that is time taking us away from "Doing" or "Being" in the Present Moment)
So, "GTD" is the "parking garage" for our THOUGHTS about future "DOING." It's NOT the "DOING." It's keeps us from worrying about putting money in the meter every hour, so we can be 100% "fully present" in the moment of the play/movie/musical.
Sheesh, I hope all that made sense...(lol)
A
andmor
Guest
Anonymous said:As I think about this I realize that David's GTD methodology does have priorities. They appear to be as follows, using a simple ABC prioritization scheme:
Calendar (Hard Landscape) = A
Next Actions (Pre-Defined Work) = B
Ad Hoc Work = C
I have posited often that the Processing phase involves prioritization and this is the first time that anyone has taken up the topicHowever, according to the Workflow Diagram, the fundamental prioritization is between commitments that are made active and those described as currently nonactionable. Next Actions could in fact be Calendar Items or ToDo's or Calls or WF.
Now, the GTD approach basically says that these priorities are negotiable.
Everything is negotiable, even Calendar items, right up to the time that the selection is made. But, I think that DA's approach is more fluid, yet at the same time more focussed, than the traditional A/B/C. It forces the elimination from consideration of those items that are not currently Doable:
-nonactionable items, including WF's
-anything other than the item assigned to the Calendar timeslot that is "now"
-items requiring location, tool or people that are not currently available
-items that will take longer or will require more mental or physical energy than are currently available at the moment of choice.
-ASAP's that are secondary to (today's) date-sensitive items
What is left to choose from is limited. The choice is positive. What is rejected is rejected for valid reasons and should not cause psychic distraction.
Andrew
Next Actions and Priorities
jkgrossi wrote:
Yes, it is. To quote GTD (p34):
So, "Pay due bills" is a properly formed next action. I don't need to decompose it into printing checks, signing checks, etc., even though those are discrete steps of the process of paying bills. Zzzagman's post does a good job of describing how you can go nuts decomposing next actions unnecessarily.
I have been thinking about the rule of thumb I mentioned in the previous post. I think it would be better to say that a next action is a significant advance toward an outcome that can be done in one context on a single occasion.
This makes it a bit harder for a next action to turn into a project simply because it has been arbitrarily decomposed into multiple steps. Projects become outcomes whose actions must be done in multiple contexts and/or on multiple occasions. If you have a bunch of steps that could be done in one context at one sitting, then I would say you are justified in describing them as a single next action.
If you are going to do ABC prioritizing, then I would suggest you do it in pencil because priorities change. This happens even in the Franklin-Covey universe. For example, as the due date of an important task approaches, its priority will go from a B to an A. It was only important before. Now it is important and urgent.
In the real universe, priorities can change dramatically on short notice, like for example when your boss shows up at your desk with a security guard and a cardboard box. :-(
Task prioritizing is really an attempt to answer Lakein's question. which is:"What is the best use of my time right now?" Priority only partly answers that question. Even if you know what your absolutely highest priority next action is, you still won't work on it if:
1) You are not in the place where the work can be done.
2) You do not have enough time available to start working on it.
3) You don't have the psychic or physical energy to do it.
The GTD Four-Criteria model is a better approach to answering Lakein's question, because it takes into account context, time available, and energy available as well as priority. Usually, the best use of your time is the highest priority action that you can do in the place where you are with the time and energy you currently have. Occasionally, however, you will have something to do that is so important and so urgent, that the best use of your time would be to:
1) Go to the place where the work can be done
2) Rearrange your schedule to make time for it
3) Pop open a can of Jolt Cola.
jkgrossi wrote:
Yes, it is. To quote GTD (p34):
So, "Pay due bills" is a properly formed next action. I don't need to decompose it into printing checks, signing checks, etc., even though those are discrete steps of the process of paying bills. Zzzagman's post does a good job of describing how you can go nuts decomposing next actions unnecessarily.
I have been thinking about the rule of thumb I mentioned in the previous post. I think it would be better to say that a next action is a significant advance toward an outcome that can be done in one context on a single occasion.
This makes it a bit harder for a next action to turn into a project simply because it has been arbitrarily decomposed into multiple steps. Projects become outcomes whose actions must be done in multiple contexts and/or on multiple occasions. If you have a bunch of steps that could be done in one context at one sitting, then I would say you are justified in describing them as a single next action.
If you are going to do ABC prioritizing, then I would suggest you do it in pencil because priorities change. This happens even in the Franklin-Covey universe. For example, as the due date of an important task approaches, its priority will go from a B to an A. It was only important before. Now it is important and urgent.
In the real universe, priorities can change dramatically on short notice, like for example when your boss shows up at your desk with a security guard and a cardboard box. :-(
Task prioritizing is really an attempt to answer Lakein's question. which is:"What is the best use of my time right now?" Priority only partly answers that question. Even if you know what your absolutely highest priority next action is, you still won't work on it if:
1) You are not in the place where the work can be done.
2) You do not have enough time available to start working on it.
3) You don't have the psychic or physical energy to do it.
The GTD Four-Criteria model is a better approach to answering Lakein's question, because it takes into account context, time available, and energy available as well as priority. Usually, the best use of your time is the highest priority action that you can do in the place where you are with the time and energy you currently have. Occasionally, however, you will have something to do that is so important and so urgent, that the best use of your time would be to:
1) Go to the place where the work can be done
2) Rearrange your schedule to make time for it
3) Pop open a can of Jolt Cola.
C
Cikub
Guest
Re: Next Actions and Priorities
This is one place where I have a disagreement with David. He says that prioritizing by value is OK, but only after these three criteria are met. I agree with him on the first two items since if you're not in the right place, you're not in the right place and if there isn't time, there isn't time--you just can't physically do something. But #3, in my mind, should come after value prioritization because in practical terms, it really translates to "Do I feel like doing this right now?" Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.
From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time. I don't feel guilty or confused when temporarily passing over tasks I physically cannot do at a point in time. Almost instantly, I can find the next, most important task that I can actually do. That way, I get the most important things done whether or not I feel like it. In fact, that's the whole value of ABC--it forces you to focus and doesn't let you use your mood as an excuse to procrastinate something important.
I'm not saying the GTD is bad or it doesn't work. For some people it works best. For people like me, GTD style lists work some days and ABC style works best others depending on what's going on at any point in time.
C
Scott_L_Lewis said:
This is one place where I have a disagreement with David. He says that prioritizing by value is OK, but only after these three criteria are met. I agree with him on the first two items since if you're not in the right place, you're not in the right place and if there isn't time, there isn't time--you just can't physically do something. But #3, in my mind, should come after value prioritization because in practical terms, it really translates to "Do I feel like doing this right now?" Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.
From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time. I don't feel guilty or confused when temporarily passing over tasks I physically cannot do at a point in time. Almost instantly, I can find the next, most important task that I can actually do. That way, I get the most important things done whether or not I feel like it. In fact, that's the whole value of ABC--it forces you to focus and doesn't let you use your mood as an excuse to procrastinate something important.
I'm not saying the GTD is bad or it doesn't work. For some people it works best. For people like me, GTD style lists work some days and ABC style works best others depending on what's going on at any point in time.
C
Energy
Cikub wrote:
It depends on the task. Some tasks require your best work. Other tasks just need to get done. The point is that if a task requires you to be at your best and you aren't, you should defer doing it if possible.
What is being advocated is the principle of being mindful of our current capacities and making intelligent choices about what to do based on them. For some people, this would become a license to be irresponsibly self-indulgent. Those people should probably not try to employ the principle.
I would add however, that chronically ignoring our energy levels and feelings will make us more productive... right up until the time when we become sick or depressed...or dead.
Cikub also wrote:
In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:
Cikub wrote:
It depends on the task. Some tasks require your best work. Other tasks just need to get done. The point is that if a task requires you to be at your best and you aren't, you should defer doing it if possible.
What is being advocated is the principle of being mindful of our current capacities and making intelligent choices about what to do based on them. For some people, this would become a license to be irresponsibly self-indulgent. Those people should probably not try to employ the principle.
I would add however, that chronically ignoring our energy levels and feelings will make us more productive... right up until the time when we become sick or depressed...or dead.
Cikub also wrote:
In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
how I deal with Priorities
I would like to share my experience with you
as Scott said earlier ABC priorities do change. I don't want to spend my time re-evaluating them or missing some B that turned into a A before I realized it. So what I do is the following: I use the palm for GTD more or less the same as David does but in addition I use the 1 2 3 4 5 priorities in Palm as follows:
for Projects (in a category of To Do)
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) in that case I enter a due date
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = Project on hold (not active yet but soon to be)
5 = Future Project (or someday/maybe if you prefer)
During the weekly Review when I decide I want a project on hold or a future project to become active I evaluate and change the priority to a 1 or 2 or 3 and put a NA somewhere with the same priority
for Next Actions which are in my to do list by context:
it's the same without the 5
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) also with a due date if there is one
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = on hold (that is when it's a one step activity which can wait a bit)
I have the above in a memo in my palm to remind me of what those numbers mean to me.
the 5 doesn't exist because this a Next Action list which means things to do ASAP
the 4 means on hold which translates to me to : 'as soon as possible but right now it's not possible because of other priorities'
I set the palm view to show tasks by priority. the advantage of that system is that whan I open a NA list @phone for example I know in a glance what are the actions I want to tackle before the others so I don't waste time going through the list to evaluate what to start with. it also helps me avoid procastinating things that I don't simply feel like doing the way Scott described it
another advantage is when you look at tasks in 'all' view you see them grouped by importance (even if the projects get mixed with the tasks but you can see they're projects if you chose the priority,category view)
I also use attached notes to the projects with all the key steps or Next Actions and I pick from there the Next Action when it becomes doable , meaning when the parent ones are accomplished, and put it in the right context list, that way i avoid overcrowdind my NA list
sometimes there are several next actions part of one project which can start independently of each other so they're all in the corresponding NA list
I hope this helps, if it does help at least one person here i will be really glad because I did learn a lot from this board- thank you
Ludmilla
I would like to share my experience with you
as Scott said earlier ABC priorities do change. I don't want to spend my time re-evaluating them or missing some B that turned into a A before I realized it. So what I do is the following: I use the palm for GTD more or less the same as David does but in addition I use the 1 2 3 4 5 priorities in Palm as follows:
for Projects (in a category of To Do)
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) in that case I enter a due date
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = Project on hold (not active yet but soon to be)
5 = Future Project (or someday/maybe if you prefer)
During the weekly Review when I decide I want a project on hold or a future project to become active I evaluate and change the priority to a 1 or 2 or 3 and put a NA somewhere with the same priority
for Next Actions which are in my to do list by context:
it's the same without the 5
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) also with a due date if there is one
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = on hold (that is when it's a one step activity which can wait a bit)
I have the above in a memo in my palm to remind me of what those numbers mean to me.
the 5 doesn't exist because this a Next Action list which means things to do ASAP
the 4 means on hold which translates to me to : 'as soon as possible but right now it's not possible because of other priorities'
I set the palm view to show tasks by priority. the advantage of that system is that whan I open a NA list @phone for example I know in a glance what are the actions I want to tackle before the others so I don't waste time going through the list to evaluate what to start with. it also helps me avoid procastinating things that I don't simply feel like doing the way Scott described it
another advantage is when you look at tasks in 'all' view you see them grouped by importance (even if the projects get mixed with the tasks but you can see they're projects if you chose the priority,category view)
I also use attached notes to the projects with all the key steps or Next Actions and I pick from there the Next Action when it becomes doable , meaning when the parent ones are accomplished, and put it in the right context list, that way i avoid overcrowdind my NA list
sometimes there are several next actions part of one project which can start independently of each other so they're all in the corresponding NA list
I hope this helps, if it does help at least one person here i will be really glad because I did learn a lot from this board- thank you
Ludmilla
Re: Energy
Understood. The problem, however, is that unless you are the boss, you are not the one who impozes the deadlines. To give you an example, I have a project that's due today. I was given the assignment on Wednesday. I wrote down the project and NA's in my categorized list. I was in meetings until about 3:30 on Wednesday, and by the time I got back to my desk I was mentally drained. I definately was not at my best. Based on the GTD criteria, I probably should pass on working on my new assignment. I did. Thursday came around, and I got called into two more meetings that ran almost all day. Mentally drained again... Keep in mind, I've got a project due tomorrow... What shoud I do?
Cikub also wrote:
In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:[/quote]
Scott_L_Lewis said:
Understood. The problem, however, is that unless you are the boss, you are not the one who impozes the deadlines. To give you an example, I have a project that's due today. I was given the assignment on Wednesday. I wrote down the project and NA's in my categorized list. I was in meetings until about 3:30 on Wednesday, and by the time I got back to my desk I was mentally drained. I definately was not at my best. Based on the GTD criteria, I probably should pass on working on my new assignment. I did. Thursday came around, and I got called into two more meetings that ran almost all day. Mentally drained again... Keep in mind, I've got a project due tomorrow... What shoud I do?
I would add however, that chronically ignoring our energy levels and feelings will make us more productive... right up until the time when we become sick or depressed...or dead.
Cikub also wrote:
In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:[/quote]
A
andmor
Guest
Must / Want
Whether we are talking about Must / Want or QI / QII, I tend to get a more positive attitude about my list if it is heavily weighted to Wants and QII's. There are 2 ways I try to get to this:
1. In the Process phase I try to think "Want" or "Improvement" by focussing on a positive outcome when I decide that something should be Actionable.
2. I try to get Musts into the Calendar so that when I look at the ToDo list I am looking mainly at Wants. I work through the Calendar before the ToDo list. (That's a bit like doing the ugly things first.)
Once an item is on my list, it's harder to change its nature and my reaction to it. Artificial triggers, such as A/B/C simply reinforce my negative feelings about B's and C's so that they may continually get pushed behind more attractive new items. What I do in the Process phase before items hit the lists is the key to how I feel about my lists when I Review them. Processing with the right discernment, hopefully Mood" can become less of a decision factor.
Andrew
Whether we are talking about Must / Want or QI / QII, I tend to get a more positive attitude about my list if it is heavily weighted to Wants and QII's. There are 2 ways I try to get to this:
1. In the Process phase I try to think "Want" or "Improvement" by focussing on a positive outcome when I decide that something should be Actionable.
2. I try to get Musts into the Calendar so that when I look at the ToDo list I am looking mainly at Wants. I work through the Calendar before the ToDo list. (That's a bit like doing the ugly things first.)
Once an item is on my list, it's harder to change its nature and my reaction to it. Artificial triggers, such as A/B/C simply reinforce my negative feelings about B's and C's so that they may continually get pushed behind more attractive new items. What I do in the Process phase before items hit the lists is the key to how I feel about my lists when I Review them. Processing with the right discernment, hopefully Mood" can become less of a decision factor.
Andrew
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
Nice system, Ludmilla
Nice sytem, Ludmilla! We are all visually-oriented/stimulated beings and assigning a category to help remind us of the importance of it is not a bad thing to do! One still has to make the intuitive choice of what one should do, though, per what David Allen says in his books.
Best to all!
Longstreet
Nice sytem, Ludmilla! We are all visually-oriented/stimulated beings and assigning a category to help remind us of the importance of it is not a bad thing to do! One still has to make the intuitive choice of what one should do, though, per what David Allen says in his books.
Best to all!
Longstreet
What You Do Now That You're Out of Time
Longstreet wrote:
Who sets the deadline is not relevant. The question is how to best manage your work so that you do the best job possible in the time you have available.
Being "at your best" is not really the issue, either. The question is whether you are good enough to tackle that particular project. Furthermore, projects do not make uniform demands on your capabilities. Some parts of a project are demanding, some can still be done even when you are ready to keel over. So, even if you were feeling drained on the earlier evenings, there still might have been some parts of the project you could have worked on.
Let's assume for this example, you were so drained that you couldn't do anything meaningful on the project until the night before it is due.
You have two options at this point.
One option is to go to your boss and renegotiate your delivery date. A lot of times bosses pick due dates out of their nether regions just to give a subordinate a delivery target. There is no shame in renegotiating an arbitrary delivery date, especially when you have busting your hump doing other things of equal or greater importance.
However, the delivery date may not be arbitrary. For example, your project may be a grant application, and the filing deadline is tomorrow. In that case, you go with the second option which is something I suggested in an earlier post. Pop open a can of Jolt Cola, get busy, and accept whatever quality of product you can produce under those circumstances.
The important point is this. When you apply the Four Criteria Model you are weighing four factors. All four of those factors vary over time, and because of that, your weighing will produce different results at different times. On Wednesday, you had slack in your schedule, so your lack of energy weighed more heavily than the priority of the task. On Friday, the priority has gone up because of the impending deadline, and now outweighs your lack of energy.
There is also one more thing I'd like to say. Considering your energy level is not asking yourself whether or not you "want to" or "feel like" doing something. It is asking yourself if you can do something. If you can't recognize the difference, then don't use the criterion in your decisionmaking.
Longstreet wrote:
Who sets the deadline is not relevant. The question is how to best manage your work so that you do the best job possible in the time you have available.
Being "at your best" is not really the issue, either. The question is whether you are good enough to tackle that particular project. Furthermore, projects do not make uniform demands on your capabilities. Some parts of a project are demanding, some can still be done even when you are ready to keel over. So, even if you were feeling drained on the earlier evenings, there still might have been some parts of the project you could have worked on.
Let's assume for this example, you were so drained that you couldn't do anything meaningful on the project until the night before it is due.
You have two options at this point.
One option is to go to your boss and renegotiate your delivery date. A lot of times bosses pick due dates out of their nether regions just to give a subordinate a delivery target. There is no shame in renegotiating an arbitrary delivery date, especially when you have busting your hump doing other things of equal or greater importance.
However, the delivery date may not be arbitrary. For example, your project may be a grant application, and the filing deadline is tomorrow. In that case, you go with the second option which is something I suggested in an earlier post. Pop open a can of Jolt Cola, get busy, and accept whatever quality of product you can produce under those circumstances.
The important point is this. When you apply the Four Criteria Model you are weighing four factors. All four of those factors vary over time, and because of that, your weighing will produce different results at different times. On Wednesday, you had slack in your schedule, so your lack of energy weighed more heavily than the priority of the task. On Friday, the priority has gone up because of the impending deadline, and now outweighs your lack of energy.
There is also one more thing I'd like to say. Considering your energy level is not asking yourself whether or not you "want to" or "feel like" doing something. It is asking yourself if you can do something. If you can't recognize the difference, then don't use the criterion in your decisionmaking.
C
Cikub
Guest
This has been a good discussion. It's interesting how, when common sense is involved, we all end up splitting hairs when it comes to honest-to-goodness differences in opinion. We seem to agree on most things with only minor differences: "You say 'to-may-to', I say 'to-mah-to'".
C
C