I got the 2 minute rule wrong.

Matt_M said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it happens, it happens. I find I get it right often enough that there's a net positive benefit. If you thought it would take 2 minutes and it takes 4, so what, really? And if you really find you've opened pandora's box, just put the whole thing on your project list and move on, as you would have done in the first place.

Matt_M said:
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
Click to expand...

Well, that's a different issue. The point I was making is that the two-minute rule doesn't say you have to stop what you're doing and do it, if it takes under 2 minutes. But you can choose to stop and do it, if you wish.

How exactly you go about choosing involves all sorts of factors - what you're currently doing, who's interrupting you and why, your company culture, how much time til your next meeting, your energy levels, etc. There's no one size fits all. We can all agree that excessive interruptions are bad for productivity, but equally, can accept that getting a certain number is just a part of work. A lot of thinking goes into how far and how often you push back on those interruptions. But that's not really a question of the 2-minute rule.
 
The two-minute rule just doesn’t seem that complicated to me: something comes up which is outside the flow of what you were working on. You either collect it or do it. Optimize and customize your decision making however you want. It’s not so different from an interruption by somebody else.
 
mcogilvie said:
The two-minute rule just doesn’t seem that complicated to me: something comes up which is outside the flow of what you were working on. You either collect it or do it. Optimize and customize your decision making however you want. It’s not so different from an interruption by somebody else.
Click to expand...
@mcogilvie My wife loves the 2-minute rule. When I implemented it my socks magically disappeared from our living room! ;)
 
For some tasks, I tend to DO the 2-minute task AND write it down.
1 - I like checking things off so I can see where the day has gone, and
2 - I need a reminder of what's been done and when for future reference

Totally agree with the earlier suggestion about good workflow and simplified storage - without that, many 2-minute tasks could be HOURS!
 
KCT said:
For some tasks, I tend to DO the 2-minute task AND write it down.
Click to expand...
I use my mind sweep sheet for this - I always have one there to capture what hits me. Checking it off 2 minutes later is a snap.

Clayton

You just had a near life experience. - Tyler Durdan.
 
Matt_M said:
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?
Click to expand...
All the time. I particularly enjoyed #1. Especially with tech where so many two-minute actions can turn up a yak to shave. When in executive processing mode I set a 2-minute timer that reminds me to put down the razor and defer the next action. I use Timeleft on my Windows desktop for my two-minute timer.
 
My understanding of the 2-minute rule is this: if you’re in your designated Clarify time and come across something whose next action can be done in 2 minutes or less, then you should do it right away.



However, if you react to any 2-minute task that suddenly shows up and feel like you have to handle it immediately, you might end up getting pulled around by unexpected inputs — which seems to go against the spirit of GTD. (Of course, if you consciously choose to handle it right away, that’s totally fine.)



So what I usually do is: no matter what, I first capture the task into my Inbox, and then decide whether it truly needs immediate attention.



I’d love to hear your thoughts — am I misunderstanding anything here?
 
David Allen says he doesn't have any two minute items because they are done. But if you are in context and it shows up and it takes less than 2 minutes do it then. The example he shows is taking a note out of the inbox and deciding to do it because it will take less than two minutes. 2 minute items still require context and appropriate energy. But 2 minute items probably don't require much energy. For example, if I'm on hold and remember I need to change a battery in a flashlight, I would write it down on a note and put it in my inbox. When I processed my inbox, I would change the battery right then because its a 2 minute item. If I were out and about only with my phone, I would put it on my @home context list. And do it at home. It's a one step next action not requiring a project. Here is a link to a great video.
 
fooddude said:
David Allen says he doesn't have any two minute items because they are done. But if you are in context and it shows up and it takes less than 2 minutes do it then. The example he shows is taking a note out of the inbox and deciding to do it because it will take less than two minutes. 2 minute items still require context and appropriate energy. But 2 minute items probably don't require much energy. For example, if I'm on hold and remember I need to change a battery in a flashlight, I would write it down on a note and put it in my inbox. When I processed my inbox, I would change the battery right then because its a 2 minute item. If I were out and about only with my phone, I would put it on my @home context list. And do it at home. It's a one step next action not requiring a project. Here is a link to a great video.
Click to expand...
Looks like this thread was originaaly posted on on David Allen's birthday
 
Great Video! Thanks!

From what DA says in this video, I would do a less than 2 minute action when I am clarifying my STUFF.
I have broken down the way I am interpreting the clarifying diagram, and I'd be glad of your opinion.

CLARIFYING

First I decide: What is it?
Fill in the blank with what it is: ________________________________________________

Then I decide: Is it Actionable?

If it is Not Actionable, or is Not Actionable now, then I decide:
Is it not needed? (I dispose of in Trash, Shred, or Recycle)
Is it a Tickler? (I organize on my Calendar, in my Tickler file, or on my Tickler list)
Is it a Someday Maybe? (I organize it on my Someday-Maybe list)
Is it a Reference item? (I organize it in my A-Z Reference Files)

If it IS Actionable, then I decide: What is the Next Action?
(What is the next physical, visible activity require to move this item toward closure?)

Fill in the blank with the Next Action: ________________________________________________

Then I decide: Is this Next Action mine or someone else's to do?
Is it someone else's to do? (I delegate it to that someone and organize it in Waiting For)
Is it mine to do? (I continue clarifying it).

Then I decide: Will this Next Action take less than 2 minutes?
Less than 2 minutes? (I do it now.)
2 minutes or more? (I continue clarifying it.)

Then I decide: Is this Next Action date or time sensitive?
Is it date or time sensitive? Yes. (I defer it and organize it on my Calendar.)
Is it date or time sensitive? No. (I defer it and organize it on my Next Actions list.)
(Next Actions can be organized by context, time available, energy level, priority, etc.)

As the last step, I decide: Is this Next Action one single action or more than one single action (a project?)
See DA quote below.*
Is it a single action? Yes. Nothing more to do.
Is it a project? Yes. I add it to my projects list and assure that it has a Next Action and a desired outcome.

I am done clarifying this item.

*Identifying the Projects You Have (Per David Allen, 2001 GTD book, page 136-137):

"This last step in getting to the bottom of 'in' requires a shift of perspective from the single-action details to the larger picture -- your projects. Again, I define a project as any outcome you're committed to achieving that will take more than one action step to complete." . . ."If the action step you've identified will not complete the commitment, then you'll need some stake in the ground to keep reminding you of actions you have pending until you have closure. You need to make a list of projects."


Warm Regards,
Emily
 
cfoley said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think the 2 minute rule can be used for different things. For me, it's primarily when a new item comes to mind, and there is decision point in the moment - can I do this within 2 minutes vs logging it into my external trusted system?

One risk, I've found, is working through contexts and seeking out the 2 minute items first (which oftentimes can be routine (done before) items. I risk putting off the more pressing items that need a bit more time.
 
Hi, @cfoley,
cfoley said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've been studying your comments above, and I've been trying to understand. I was so glad that you later posted the page numbers below from the UK 2001 edition of Getting Things Done, so I could try to see what made you believe you were not doing 2-minute actions correctly.

cfoley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since I have the GTD 2001 US Edition, I looked up the pages you mentioned. Not positive they are the same but likely close.

The part you mention about projects is on Pages 136-137 in my book and is entitled, Identifying the Projects you Have. What is interesting to me here is that DA says "The last step in getting to the bottom of "in" requires a shift in focus from the single-action details to the larger picture -- your projects." I've been looking at the GTD Workflow Processing Diagram for years and wondering in what sequence projects fit into the clarifying process, and now I know: Projects are the last step of the process. Thank you for this!

Page 131 in my book starts about an inch down the page with a section called Once You Decide What the Action Step Is. It mentions "do it, delegate it, and defer it" as three options and focuses almost to the end of Page 133 on the "do it" option, meaning doing a two minute action.

From reading this chapter and your posts, I think you might be saying this:

1. For about the last ten years, you've been using the 2-minute rule when you are clarifying (processing) your STUFF. You've determined what the next action is, and you've decided whether it is a less than 2-minute action. If it is a less than 2-minute action, you have done it right then during the clarifying process.

2. Now you realize that you were doing the 2-minute rule incorrectly when you did this. It isn't exactly that doing this is not correct, since you still will be doing this at the clarifying (processing) level. It is that it was not a complete understanding of when to use the 2-minute rule. What you will be doing now is applying the 2-minute rule at other times, as well. For instance, other times you will be using the 2-minute rule is at the next actions level.

Okay. I'm having trouble finding an example. I'm puzzled about where you would find these next actions of less than 2 minutes to engage with. You say you do not even need to write them down. You can just do them. Are you perhaps clarifying your STUFF during the week before you do your next weekly review? Or are you perhaps engaging with things you have not clarified because you feel confident they are less than 2 minute actions? Examples would really help.

Warmly,

Emily
 
Mrs-Polifax said:
Hi, @cfoley,


I've been studying your comments above, and I've been trying to understand. I was so glad that you later posted the page numbers below from the UK 2001 edition of Getting Things Done, so I could try to see what made you believe you were not doing 2-minute actions correctly.



Since I have the GTD 2001 US Edition, I looked up the pages you mentioned. Not positive they are the same but likely close.

The part you mention about projects is on Pages 136-137 in my book and is entitled, Identifying the Projects you Have. What is interesting to me here is that DA says "The last step in getting to the bottom of "in" requires a shift in focus from the single-action details to the larger picture -- your projects." I've been looking at the GTD Workflow Processing Diagram for years and wondering in what sequence projects fit into the clarifying process, and now I know: Projects are the last step of the process. Thank you for this!

Page 131 in my book starts about an inch down the page with a section called Once You Decide What the Action Step Is. It mentions "do it, delegate it, and defer it" as three options and focuses almost to the end of Page 133 on the "do it" option, meaning doing a two minute action.

From reading this chapter and your posts, I think you might be saying this:

1. For about the last ten years, you've been using the 2-minute rule when you are clarifying (processing) your STUFF. You've determined what the next action is, and you've decided whether it is a less than 2-minute action. If it is a less than 2-minute action, you have done it right then during the clarifying process.

2. Now you realize that you were doing the 2-minute rule incorrectly when you did this. It isn't exactly that doing this is not correct, since you still will be doing this at the clarifying (processing) level. It is that it was not a complete understanding of when to use the 2-minute rule. What you will be doing now is applying the 2-minute rule at other times, as well. For instance, other times you will be using the 2-minute rule is at the next actions level.

Okay. I'm having trouble finding an example. I'm puzzled about where you would find these next actions of less than 2 minutes to engage with. You say you do not even need to write them down. You can just do them. Are you perhaps clarifying your STUFF during the week before you do your next weekly review? Or are you perhaps engaging with things you have not clarified because you feel confident they are less than 2 minute actions? Examples would really help.

Warmly,

Emily
Click to expand...
@Mrs-Polifax et al.,

Two or more possibilites for the "Two Minute Rule":

1. In the midst of "'Inbox' Clarifying" ?

2. Fulfillment in the midst of Random Inputs ?

3. ?


Thank you very much
 
Mrs-Polifax said:
Okay. I'm having trouble finding an example. I'm puzzled about where you would find these next actions of less than 2 minutes to engage with. You say you do not even need to write them down. You can just do them. Are you perhaps clarifying your STUFF during the week before you do your next weekly review? Or are you perhaps engaging with things you have not clarified because you feel confident they are less than 2 minute actions? Examples would really help.
Click to expand...

I suppose one time would be when I complete an action from my list. If the project is not complete, I could write down the new next action. But if it is less than 2 minutes, I should just do it instead of writing it down.

Another time would be work as it shows up. When work shows up, I can either capture it or do it right away. My new interpretation of the 2 minute rule would say I should do it right away if it is quick to do.

I have to say, that I started this thread nearly three years ago, and this new understanding of the two minute rule has not revolutionised my life. It is entirely possible that I was reading more than was intended into the wording.
 
cfoley said:
I suppose one time would be when I complete an action from my list. If the project is not complete, I could write down the new next action. But if it is less than 2 minutes, I should just do it instead of writing it down.

Another time would be work as it shows up. When work shows up, I can either capture it or do it right away. My new interpretation of the 2 minute rule would say I should do it right away if it is quick to do.

I have to say, that I started this thread nearly three years ago, and this new understanding of the two minute rule has not revolutionised my life. It is entirely possible that I was reading more than was intended into the wording.
Click to expand...
Courtesy of the very good GTDer @cfoley :

3. " when I complete an action from my list. If the project is not complete, I could write down the new next action. But if it is less than 2 minutes, I should just do it instead of writing it down."

4. ?

Thank you very much sir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top