I got the 2 minute rule wrong.

cfoley

Registered
Oh no. I've been doing the 2 minute rule incorrectly for the last 10 years.

I thought it applied at the processing level. When processing an item from the inbox, if it is actionable and can be completed in 2 minutes then I thought it should just be done at that point.

When I reread the section yesterday, it became clear that it applies at the next action level. Any time a next action could be completed in 2 minutes, then just do it instead of writing it down. So, this includes when processing but also every other time I could write down a next action.

Honestly, I have had so much benefit from the 2 minute rule with my incorrect understanding that I can't wait to reap the rewards of it being applied properly. I'm just sad that my GTD clock has been reset. Now I can only claim to have been doing GTD for one day.

Is there anything fundamental that you have misunderstood about GTD that you only realised months or years after you began?
 

cfoley

Registered
:D

I am writing those 2-minute tasks down most of the time and do it when processing my inboxes.
Is this incorrect?

Do you mean that sometimes the things you have captured turn out to be 2 minute tasks? I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
 

Murray

Registered
Sounds to me like you've been doing it exactly right. 2 minute rule is to be applied when processing your various inboxes, not every time you capture something into your inboxes.

Processing (also called clarifying) happens when you decide to spend some time in processing mode. Capturing happens any time you have an idea or input that could potentially be relevant. You may be in the middle of doing something else and should not force yourself to stop that activity to do 2 minute actions, or even to decide if an item is actionable.

Your 10 year clock is safe!
 

cfoley

Registered
Ah, that's not what I meant.

Capturing results in amorphous stuff that the 2 minute rule cannot be applied to. We agree on this.

When processing (or clarifying) I would only apply the 2 minute rule if the entire thing could be dealt with in 2 minutes. So, the three outcomes I could have for something that was actionable were:
  • a 2 minute action
  • or a standalone next action
  • or a project with a next action.
I would never create a project and do the first action. However, what I now think the rule says is to apply the 2 minute rule to the next action if it is a 2 minute action. So, I could still end up with a project but the first action would be complete and the second "next action" is the one I would write on my lists.

Furthermore, as I am in the "Do" part of the workflow, I will be completing actions and writing new next actions. I wouldn't be applying the 2 minute rule here either but now I think the rule might apply here too.
 

ivanjay205

Registered
Oh no. I've been doing the 2 minute rule incorrectly for the last 10 years.

I thought it applied at the processing level. When processing an item from the inbox, if it is actionable and can be completed in 2 minutes then I thought it should just be done at that point.

When I reread the section yesterday, it became clear that it applies at the next action level. Any time a next action could be completed in 2 minutes, then just do it instead of writing it down. So, this includes when processing but also every other time I could write down a next action.

Honestly, I have had so much benefit from the 2 minute rule with my incorrect understanding that I can't wait to reap the rewards of it being applied properly. I'm just sad that my GTD clock has been reset. Now I can only claim to have been doing GTD for one day.

Is there anything fundamental that you have misunderstood about GTD that you only realised months or years after you began?
I dont think you were doing it wrong at all. It is EITHER at "capture" time or "processing" time. Often I get little nuggets of action items in my meetings or other interactions with colleagues. I cannot do them right then and there without ignoring the meeting. But when it is processing time I can so I do.
 

schmeggahead

Registered
When I reread the section yesterday, it became clear that it applies at the next action level. Any time a next action could be completed in 2 minutes, then just do it instead of writing it down. So, this includes when processing but also every other time I could write down a next action.
When I think of something I want to do and it only takes two minutes to complete and I can do it now, I do it now, if I'm ever going to do it.

However, I have a doorway problem: every time I walk through one, my head clears of whatever. I obviously live in a world with too many doorways, so my note taker wallet gets a note put in it about what I intend to do in two minutes so I can carry it through all of those doorways to get to where I want to do that two minute action.

But seriously, my 2 minute rule uses 5 or 10 minutes because most of the time, I'm better off taking the 5-10 minutes now and just do it.

Did I get the meaning of what you meant?

I'm just sad that my GTD clock has been reset.
If a discovery about how GTD works better for me was to reset my GTD clock it would probably behave more like a stopped clock. :cool:

There is a bunch of interesting insights you've generated with this original post, so take that plus and run with it.

Clayton
Understanding something and living it are two very different things. - Sam Diamond
 

cfoley

Registered
Yes, I think you got the meaning of what I meant. :)

I also like your solution to the walking-through-a-door problem.

The resetting the counter was just a silly bit of fun, but after reading your post I might keep an "It has been X days since I learned something revolutionary about GTD." The lower it stays, the better!
 

cfoley

Registered
Getting Things Done, 2001 UK Edition, p131-133. However, the context required is the whole of Chapter 6 Processing: Getting "In" to Empty, particularly the bit at the end about projects. It describes projects as the last step of processing, meaning that you have already decided the next action and possibly applied the two minute rule.
 

Matt_M

Registered
When processing an item from the inbox, if it is actionable and can be completed in 2 minutes then I thought it should just be done at that point.

That is how I understood the "rule" (more of a guideline to me) to work. Are you saying that when you're capturing an idea that if it can be done in 2 minutes then you immediately do it? That seems like it would skip the clarifying stage somewhat or at least potentially try to artificially compress the steps a bit.

Any time a next action could be completed in 2 minutes, then just do it instead of writing it down. So, this includes when processing but also every other time I could write down a next action.

I am probably misunderstanding what is being stated here but this seems to mean, to me, that you're applying the 2 minute rule during the capture phase, correct? I would imagine that tangles capturing and clarifying a bit too much for most folks. Usually most 2 minutes items cannot be done immediately when capturing (e.g. "Cancel next week's marketing meeting" but if I am not at my computer then I can't do it even though it takes just a few seconds).

Are you referring to when you're reflecting on your various items in your GTD system such that you may be scanning a project and notice that "Ah, that next action is a 2 minute action, let me do that real quick". Does this include project planning instances where you may have a project with no next action currently but upon review you realize that the next action for this particular project is X and it will only take 2 minutes so just do it then?

Slightly related but my biggest gripes with the 2 minute rule are:

  1. I am terrible at really determining if something will only take 2 minutes.

    Humans are terrible at estimation and what often appears to be a 2 minute item initially could end up being a 10 minute to 30 minute rabbit hole. For example: "Cancel next week's marketing meeting":

    OK, let me just login to my machine
    ... oh wait, my network password expired, I have to change it
    ... OK, I need to think of a new password that satisfies the cryptography gods
    ... password changed, now I need to write that down/store it in my password manager right now because if I forget that then I am doomed to deal with an angry IT help desk and lecture about how important security is
    ... OK, I logged back in ... oh, I need to resync Outlook with the server
    ... OK, looks like things synced
    ... wait a minute, the UI changed
    ... I need to find my calendar
    ... now that I think of it, we have an important campaign that is due by the end of the next week and Bob is out of the office next week, should I just reschedule the meeting instead? Let me pull up everyone's schedules
    ... oh darn it, Sue's calendar got removed from my list, let me go add that
    ...
    I feel like stealing David's old line "In 2.6 minutes you are out of control".
  2. Anything that is actually 2 minutes but involves communication with someone else can very often become much longer because they respond to that quickly completed item with a new item.

    Continuing the example, "Cancel next week's marketing meeting"

    Sue sends an email back about the cancellation/rescheduling saying that she is traveling the week after next and would like us to meet next week
    ... OK, so now the next action (a 2 minute one) is to email her back saying "Bob is out next week, should we reschedule to this week if possible?"
    ... and what do you know, she replies and so on and so forth
    This is even more common in the age of instant message clients like Slack and Microsoft Teams. I sometimes actually purposefully resist doing certain 2 minute items like this because invariably they pull me into doing work and distract me / take me away from processing of the items in my inbox into my system and defining my work.

Do you find you have these problems or similar ones? Do you find these occur/would occur with how you're interpreting the 2 minute rule now?
 

Matt_M

Registered
Here is @DavidAllen talking about the 2-minute-rule:

I saw that come through on my YouTube feed the other day (about 9 hours after it was published) and I was kind of curious if the person(s) who manages that channel released that video in relation to this thread. A bit of a spooky coincidence if nothing else.

Any who, I always enjoy watching a video from David, even an older one, as often there are little insights sprinkles throughout them that I may have missed before.
 

Rotterdam_Guy

Registered
I use the two minute rule during my inbox processing (either during the day or at the end of the week). Most of the times when capturing, I don't have the option to do the action at that point (and if I can do it at that time, I almost never put it in my system. I might however punt the action that follows in my system (like I've send a question to a coworker and am waiting for a reply.
 

bishblaize

Registered
Slightly related but my biggest gripes with the 2 minute rule are:

  1. I am terrible at really determining if something will only take 2 minutes.

    Humans are terrible at estimation and what often appears to be a 2 minute item initially could end up being a 10 minute to 30 minute rabbit hole. For example: "Cancel next week's marketing meeting":​

    OK, let me just login to my machine
    ... oh wait, my network password expired, I have to change it
    ... OK, I need to think of a new password that satisfies the cryptography gods
    ... password changed, now I need to write that down/store it in my password manager right now because if I forget that then I am doomed to deal with an angry IT help desk and lecture about how important security is
    ... OK, I logged back in ... oh, I need to resync Outlook with the server
    ... OK, looks like things synced
    ... wait a minute, the UI changed
    ... I need to find my calendar
    ... now that I think of it, we have an important campaign that is due by the end of the next week and Bob is out of the office next week, should I just reschedule the meeting instead? Let me pull up everyone's schedules
    ... oh darn it, Sue's calendar got removed from my list, let me go add that
    ...​

    I feel like stealing David's old line "In 2.6 minutes you are out of control".​

On this point, this is why having a really streamlined set-up at work and on your computer is so critical. A simple example is having a good digital reference system you can search universally from your keyboard. If someone asks me to send them a report that was released 3 years ago, I can probably find it in 10 seconds using an Alfred search. If I leave my digital files in 5 different places plus my email archive, then it might take me 5 or 10 minutes to find it instead.


  1. Anything that is actually 2 minutes but involves communication with someone else can very often become much longer because they respond to that quickly completed item with a new item.

    Continuing the example, "Cancel next week's marketing meeting"​

    Sue sends an email back about the cancellation/rescheduling saying that she is traveling the week after next and would like us to meet next week
    ... OK, so now the next action (a 2 minute one) is to email her back saying "Bob is out next week, should we reschedule to this week if possible?"
    ... and what do you know, she replies and so on and so forth​

    This is even more common in the age of instant message clients like Slack and Microsoft Teams. I sometimes actually purposefully resist doing certain 2 minute items like this because invariably they pull me into doing work and distract me / take me away from processing of the items in my inbox into my system and defining my work.​

Do you find you have these problems or similar ones? Do you find these occur/would occur with how you're interpreting the 2 minute rule now?
There's no need to interrupt what you're doing to complete a 2-minute item. It will sit in your inbox/unreads quite happily until you finish what you're doing. Then when you get some discretionary time you can do some more processing if you want, and clear out any two-minute items then.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

Registered
I believe whoever it was who said that switching tasks costs a minimum of twelve minutes. Therefore, in my world, there are no two minute tasks and no two minute rule. :)
 

Matt_M

Registered
On this point, this is why having a really streamlined set-up at work and on your computer is so critical. A simple example is having a good digital reference system you can search universally from your keyboard. If someone asks me to send them a report that was released 3 years ago, I can probably find it in 10 seconds using an Alfred search. If I leave my digital files in 5 different places plus my email archive, then it might take me 5 or 10 minutes to find it instead.

I don't disagree that a well oiled workflow is critical. However, I was referring more to the fact that often what appears to be a two minute item is quite often laden with traps for rabbit holes and distractions not to mention pitfalls when a critical step goes awry. Even the most efficient machine is not impervious from breaking down and requiring servicing.

There's no need to interrupt what you're doing to complete a 2-minute item. It will sit in your inbox/unreads quite happily until you finish what you're doing. Then when you get some discretionary time you can do some more processing if you want, and clear out any two-minute items then.

Possibly. I find that the expectation of most people, in most places, in most workplace cultures, today at least, is that fast response times are the norm. Especially even more so when someone who may or may not usually respond promptly (e.g. if it takes hours to finally get in contact with someone you really don't want to let go until all of your issues related to them are addressed/resolved). Vice-verse if someone won't stop pestering you, usually you will do just about anything to make them quiet/go away. In both cases, the problem is either not responding fast enough or responding too fast. Ironic, but maybe my experiences are not typical? Just my thoughts

I believe whoever it was who said that switching tasks costs a minimum of twelve minutes. Therefore, in my world, there are no two minute tasks and no two minute rule. :)

I heard 20 minutes ... must be inflation ;) I tend to agree that the two minute "rule" might not be all that it is cracked up to be unless strictly and rigidly controlled.
 
Top