jpm said:
Except of course for statistically significant things like sample size....
I don't know what you mean by that... Sample size is an important factor (among others) in determining statistical significance. But the whole point in statistics is to make inference: something in a small scale should be valid in a large scale.
Anyway, I have never said that you should use statistics to analyze everything in your life! My point is very simple and direct: do not trust only in your intuition to track your projects. Instead, define something measurable (even if not perfect) and consider it in your reviews.
jpm said:
So can analyzing metrics. Did the number of less-than-2-minute actions drop on average over a number of days? If so how do you know this was do to a change in your GTD use system, or not some other factor (like being on the road vs. home; being in a good mood vs. a bad one, being tired vs. having lots of energy... there are a lot of potential variables and getting at cause and effect requires rigorous statistical practice....
Again, you are over-complicating things... This is not a scientific project, you cannot control everything in your life and all these situations may as well occur in your control group (baseline)! I am just suggesting to use your intuition as usual, but counting also on an objective measurement of success. By the way, most scientists in the last years have abandoned the "p-value dictatorship"!
I generally agree with your rules of thumb. I would just keep away from any kind of subjective measurements (like your 1-10 scores; intuition takes care of that) and try to keep it as simple as possible. The fact that it is not a perfect statistical design is irrelevant.
mcogilvie said:
You are entitiled to your opinion, of course, but there is a difference between large and small organizations in sample size. Statistical fluctuations are larger for individuals and small organizations, and there is a human tendency to correlate those fluctuations with actions taken or not taken. Other, more general problems with basing actions on formal metrics can include:
* bias or subjectivity in the metric
* using an inappropriate metric
* equating correlation with causation
and so on.
Once again, I have never praised the need for complex statistical analysis of your projects or said that one should base actions on formal metrics. Just add an objective measurement of success to your current intuition-based analysis.
The common misconception in all these comments is that if you cannot perfectly use metrics, you shouldn't use it at all. As most things in life, there is no black and white here: come and enjoy the gray zone!
mcogilvie said:
By the way, I assume your Michael Gerber is the "e-myth" guy I found on the web. I have never heard of him before. That's one of the problems with "appeals to authority" as an argument: it doesn't work if the other guy has never heard of your authority!
This is another misconception. Citing someone doesn't mean I am insulting your knowledge or that he is an expert in anything! It just means that these are not my ideas, but someone's else, and I am kindly giving you the reference so that you can consult the originals.
By the way, Michael Gerber has been cited on these forums lots of time and is a very nice read (despite some spiritual fluff). He defends that small businesses should operate since their start as big ones, using dynamic (innovation) standardized systems (orchestration). Metrics connects innovation to orchestration.
mcogilvie said:
Here I respectfully disagree. Based on my own experience and the postings of others, I have come to believe that tweaking is essentially a subconscious response to failure in implementing the core habits of GTD. For example, I fail to do a weekly review, so I blame my tools.
Well, I respectfully dis-disagree. Everyone tweaks their systems because life changes and there is always place for improvements. David Allen wants to develop new collecting methods, make better use of mind maps or implement web-based solutions; Eric Mack is always improving his Lotus template, now using ActiveWords; Marc Orchant is amazingly discovering new ways of doing GTD, collecting web-based information (Onfolio), etc.
These people are not losers, failing to implement GTD! Quite the opposite, they are on the edge, defining what better works for you and me...
mcogilvie said:
People differ widely. That kind of dedication to routine is frankly not in me nor does the nature of my work lend itself to it. I went through a period where I exported my completed todo's to DayNotez. I never looked at the exported tasks, and I stopped.
I agree with you here: people are really different and all my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I also had this problem with DayNotez, when I finally understood that it was part of a much bigger one: transforming information into knowledge.
Our old to-do's are generally just information, and if we don't convert them to knowledge, tracking is useless. Recently I came to believe that information is to knowledge what stuff is to actions, and it may overload us as well. To make things worse, Copernik, X1 and Lookout are equally useless, just as searching an engineering library doesn't make an engineer out of you. But this another subject for discussions...
Peace,
Eduardo