Replying
pxt: Interesting! Like you, I don't further pre-sort the very short tasks -- in my case, this means 2-minute or less. So there is a bit of a conflation of time and energy right
there. I like the feel of your "Devt" category: rather than thinking "This is difficult,
this will take a lot of energy" it's a more positive thought like "I need a calm time
when I can be creative and not be interrupted".
bishblaize: That's fine: different people will need different techniques. For me, even
if it only takes a second to decide whether I have the energy to do something, if the
answer is "no" then spending that second has a small but significant cost
in terms of reducing my overall motivation and also making me
less likely to feel up to doing that same action on another occasion.
Even if the answer is yes, it won't tend to be whole-hearted because the
process of deciding involves awakening whatever internal forces might
push for a "no" answer.
Re time:
What I actually do is record how much time I need to have available in order
to feel comfortable starting on an action. I'm predicting how I'll feel when I
start, not the end result. The time may be longer than how long I think the
action will take, if I want to make sure I won't be interrupted (like with pxt's
"Devt" category). Or it can be shorter than how long I think it will take,
if I don't mind being interrupted and continuing the action later. The times
are approximate. For example, if I have about 10 minutes available at home
and want to get some things done, I like having a list of quick actions so
I don't have to read over a longer list and regretfully reject a lot of actions
I wish I had time for.
For example, if I'm planning to leave the house in 10 minutes and am
already ready to go, I won't choose that moment to turn off the water
in the house and start taking apart the kitchen tap.
Re priorities: David Allen says priorities are always changing. I find
that for me, they don't change all that much. For example, if something
is a priority because I've made a promise to someone about it,
that fact isn't likely to change. If I get new information
which raises the priority of an action, I can and often do immediately
update it in my planning system; I don't have to wait for weekly review.
Anyway, the priorities I assign are approximate, and at any time I
still have the option of reading the entire list. I usually don't read
only the first item, but the first several, and choose from among them,
and occasionally I read more, to check whether some are out of place.
I can adjust the priority levels at any time.
In my previous system, I occasionally put a star beside an action
to mark it as high priority. I found that that worked well. Often, later
on I would decide it wasn't that high a priority after all and might even
decide not to do it at all; however, usually, the starred actions got done
in a reasonable time, and if I was in a hurry I could quickly glance at
a list to check whether there were any starred items, without having
to read the whole list, and it gave me
a reassuring feeling that there was probably nothing very urgent I
was forgetting to do, as well as an opportunity to quickly do the
starred action if appropriate.
Oogiem: well, I'm just starting on it, so I might decide to stop or modify
it. I still do have a list of a variety of actions I can choose from,
no fewer than before; they're just sorted, and I usually choose not to
read them all. We each need to find the system that works for us.
General comment: some people might prefer to sort actions into categories
like "physical work", "computer", "calculations on paper", "creativity",
"human interaction", etc. rather than an energy level. This would be like
sorting by context, except the point isn't what you're constrained by
your surroundings to be able to do (e.g. whether you have a computer
available), but the type of action you feel capable of doing, or prefer to
do, at that time.
