Priorities A B, not C. Lists and Focus: guidance safety?

[goncalomata]

[sorry if it seems again the ABC thing, it's not, or it is, but in a different way (I think)]

Focus is your productivity "power".
Focus depends on how sure you are of your choice (the level of trust in your guidance).
Many options (big lists) or continuous new inputs (unclosed lists) mean lower safety of choice*.
So i guess marking priorities = less options each time you assess lists = better focus = better productivity.

What I don't think is that you need 2 levels: YES or NO should suffice. The meaning is: "Do I want this on my next execution cycle or not?" (be it these next 3 hours or these next 3 days on my business trip). Each end of cycle, review all probably including new inputs (paused as possible during cycle). Reviewing requires reassessing higher level horizon guidance (which also should be prioritize bynarily, evenif most likely for a longer "execution" cycle).

So I would say YES for getting rid of items in front of you (marking priorities). NO for maintaining more than 2 levels because of maintenance/review/decision effort and time-volatility-trustworthiness of the 3rd level. If it's not for soon, get it out of your lists until next big review.

Goncalo Gil Mata
www.WHATSTHETRICK.com

*(see very interesting Paradox of Choice - Barry Schwartz google talk)

 

[mattjans]

I like the advice below about having two levels of priority max. One of the problems I've had getting into GTD is not having priorities. My stuff and actions are better organized, but I still end up not focusing on what I should. I haven't followed the thread, but I'd add the following.

1) Allow those priorities to change on a daily/weekly level as your "incentive structure" (e.g., boss's instructions or deadlines) change.

2) Make sure they match with whatever long-term goals you have. For me that's academic publishing.

Great advice.

[sorry if it seems again the ABC thing, it's not, or it is, but in a different way (I think)]

Focus is your productivity "power".
Focus depends on how sure you are of your choice (the level of trust in your guidance).
Many options (big lists) or continuous new inputs (unclosed lists) mean lower safety of choice*.
So i guess marking priorities = less options each time you assess lists = better focus = better productivity.

What I don't think is that you need 2 levels: YES or NO should suffice. The meaning is: "Do I want this on my next execution cycle or not?" (be it these next 3 hours or these next 3 days on my business trip). Each end of cycle, review all probably including new inputs (paused as possible during cycle). Reviewing requires reassessing higher level horizon guidance (which also should be prioritize bynarily, evenif most likely for a longer "execution" cycle).

So I would say YES for getting rid of items in front of you (marking priorities). NO for maintaining more than 2 levels because of maintenance/review/decision effort and time-volatility-trustworthiness of the 3rd level. If it's not for soon, get it out of your lists until next big review.

Goncalo Gil Mata
www.WHATSTHETRICK.com

*(see very interesting Paradox of Choice - Barry Schwartz google talk)

 

[bcmyers2112]

That adds unneeded complexity...

Many options (big lists) or continuous new inputs (unclosed lists) mean lower safety of choice*.

So i guess marking priorities = less options each time you assess lists = better focus = better productivity.

I think you're complicated that which should be un-complicated. Static priority codes don't hold up to the ever-shifting reality most professionals face. When I review my GTD lists I filter out stuff in contexts that aren't available to me at the moment, stuff I don't have time to do, stuff I don't have energy to do, and then I make the priority decision.

I don't need a static coding system to help me make that "YES" or "NO" decision. I just ask two questions in the moment (ones suggested by Kelly Forrister): what's the payoff if I do this, and what's the risk if I don't? The answers to those questions can change based on what is or isn't going on in my life at the moment. I trust my intuition more than a static coding system.

Once I've made my choices about what to do for the time being I use my list manager to put a "star" next to those next actions. The software lets me filter on those so I can focus on what I need to. If a call from my boss, a client, or whomever blows up my plans, no big deal because my context lists remain intact.

I realize priority coding looks like it provides safety but I always found it to be illusory. Again, I think you are essentially trying to do what GTD already does but in an unnecessarily complicated way.

 

[goncalomata]

thanks

Once I've made my choices about what to do for the time being I use my list manager to put a "star" next to those next actions. The software lets me filter on those so I can focus on what I need to.

thanks for that. I believe your are saying exactly how I do it, I just may have expressed myself badly.

I don't need a static coding system to help me make that "YES" or "NO" decision.

you are making it temporarily static when you put your star next to the chosen ones. and I think that's exactly what best works

When I review my GTD lists I filter out stuff in contexts that aren't available to me at the moment, stuff I don't have time to do, stuff I don't have energy to do, and then I make the priority decision.

now this is a tricky one. I know that it's great to get rid of list items we can't do at all, but... if we keep waiting for the write context to make things happen, aren't we swaping the right order? I mean: we do what can be done within the context we have, or we create the right context to be able to do the things we want? reactive or proactive?

Gonçalo Gil Mata
www.WHATsTheTRICK.com

 

[TesTeq]

Fixing a roof on a plane.

I mean: we do what can be done within the context we have, or we create the right context to be able to do the things we want? reactive or proactive?

I cannot proactively change my context when I'm on a plane from SF to NY. Even if my top priority is fixing a roof in my house I cannot do it - both reactively and proactively.

 

[cwoodgold]

Once I've made my choices about what to do for the time being I use my list manager to put a "star" next to those next actions. The software lets me filter on those so I can focus on what I need to.

That's a way of recording priorities and using them to choose which next actions to read lists of in the short term and which to leave to look at again later. That's similar to what I do. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Avoid analysis paralysis

now this is a tricky one. I know that it's great to get rid of list items we can't do at all, but... if we keep waiting for the write context to make things happen, aren't we swaping the right order? I mean: we do what can be done within the context we have, or we create the right context to be able to do the things we want? reactive or proactive?

That's not very tricky. If I'm at work I can't go and run personal errands. If it's the weekend I can't call clients. I ignore those contexts when they don't apply.

On the other hand, when I'm at home on a weekend with no other obligations I know I can run errands. So if it makes sense I'll "create the right context" when I need to.

I think you're making this sound much harder than it is. Avoid analysis paralysis.

 

[bcmyers2112]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate

That's a way of recording priorities and using them to choose which next actions to read lists of in the short term and which to leave to look at again later. That's similar to what I do. Nothing wrong with it.

I never said GTD doesn't incorporate priorities, because it does. Priority is part of the four-fold model for deciding what to do in GTD. All I said was that there is a difference between evaluating priorities in the moment and trying to decide on them ahead of time. I do the former because I've found the latter to be ineffective. Your mileage may vary.

 

[goncalomata]

Four fold model

Priority is part of the four-fold model for deciding what to do in GTD.

I agree that grouping tasks by context is clever. I use it quite a lot. It gets me to take advantage of the context to get some things done, no doubt.

That being said, I believe the 4 fold model it's too reactive. And I think it is what most of my clients find difficult to implement, because it's difficult to trust. If you have your systems really complete with lots of tasks, when you browse it by context, you keep seeing things that are totally secondary, along with ultra-important things. You may have "make_50.000$_urgent_transfer" next to "browse_possible_web_sites_about_music", just because there are @computer+net. And they find that quite suspicious in terms of guidance.

I recomend separating the global repository and the guidance_sheet. The first has everything, is complete and easily browsable, enabling trustful selections. The second, valid for a certain period of time, has only whats pertinent for that period. After constructing the guide, the rest of the repository should disappear for a while. That also enhances the feeling of completeness (if you make a shorter to-do-list you can hope to get it all done).

Gonçalo Gil Mata
www.WHATsTheTRICK.com

 

[mcogilvie]

I recomend separating the global repository and the guidance_sheet. The first has everything, is complete and easily browsable, enabling trustful selections. The second, valid for a certain period of time, has only whats pertinent for that period. After constructing the guide, the rest of the repository should disappear for a while. That also enhances the feeling of completeness (if you make a shorter to-do-list you can hope to get it all done).

Yes, some people find a hot list (or whatever nomenclature you like) helpful some or even all of the time. I do. Is it essential for everyone? Clearly some people do well without it. Can over-reliance on a hot list lead to problems? From my own experience, yes. Does the form of such a list depend on the tools used? Yes.

I don't see a problem here.

 

[cwoodgold]

One way to implement a hotlist is to label the actions on the hotlist with "A" and leave everything else labelled as "B". These can be called "AB priority codes". (Some people use stars, flags etc.) David Allen says "The "ABC" priority codes don't work." It's not clear to me whether he means all systems of marking priorities with A, B and C. or some particular system that involves doing that and using them in a particular way. It seems to me that he means they don't work for anyone, though mcogilvie says "When David Allen says it doesn't work, he means it doesn't work for everybody, all the time."

In any case, apparently there are a number of people (including, perhaps, David Allen) who find that AB priority codes or equivalent work for them, but not ABC priority codes. That's fine; but there are other people (including myself) who find that a larger number of gradations in recorded priorities of next actions is more effective for us.

To bcmyers2112: Thanks for saying "Your mileage may vary." and "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." I appreciate it. Yes, I think we're having trouble communicating. We can try to work through that and figure out what's going on; or we can drop it. It hasn't been my intention to criticize anyone, but to discuss ideas, opinions and reasons. I'm sorry if saying "straw man" very briefly came across as impolite; I'm not sure what's the best way to express that idea.

 

[TesTeq]

"C" haters?

In any case, apparently there are a number of people (including, perhaps, David Allen) who find that AB priority codes or equivalent work for them, but not ABC priority codes. That's fine; but there are other people (including myself) who find that a larger number of gradations in recorded priorities of next actions is more effective for us.

Maybe some people hate the letter "C"? In this context I hate "A" and "B" too... I don't need any priority gradation except for Active and Someday/Maybe.

 

[goncalomata]

A SM system

Maybe some people hate the letter "C"? In this context I hate "A" and "B" too... I don't need any priority gradation except for Active and Someday/Maybe.

liked that. I'm about to change my A/B system into a A/SM system...

but what I think is the issue here, is more the time cycle of the review than the gradation itself.
what I find critical is not "to have or not multiple gradations", but that it allows that, at a certain moment, after all the comparisons made, I can have a period of time (be it 20 minutes or my whole day) where I can trust some fixed guide without having to make any decisions for a little while... and that's when you don't want a lot of new inputs questioning your previous decisions. mental resources of decision and mental resources of execution are very different and avoiding shifting between them goes a long way in terms of efficient use of brain power.

(I must confess that though i'm really really new at this forum, I'm positively overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge, and value that I already got from these first dozen of discussions I've "attended" so far. Thank you forum and everyone!! Pure gold resides in here...)

Gonçalo Gil Mata
WHATsTheTRICK.com

 

[mommoe436]

What do you want to see when you have "doing time"?

I think the bottom line is what do you want to see on your list of choices when you have doing time. This is my understanding of the intent of contexts, time, energy level and priority. If priorities are a bigger factor than where you are or what resources are available to you, then priority coding is the most effective way to narrow your choices when you have doing time. Which, of course, is different for everyone and the beauty of GTD.
Maureen

 

[mcogilvie]

I think the bottom line is what do you want to see on your list of choices when you have doing time. This is my understanding of the intent of contexts, time, energy level and priority. If priorities are a bigger factor than where you are or what resources are available to you, then priority coding is the most effective way to narrow your choices when you have doing time. Which, of course, is different for everyone and the beauty of GTD.
Maureen

I agree. Thanks for taking us back up to the "what do you want to see when?" question. It's really a master key to making gtd work for each person.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Now I think we're communicating

One way to implement a hotlist is to label the actions on the hotlist with "A" and leave everything else labelled as "B". These can be called "AB priority codes". (Some people use stars, flags etc.) David Allen says "The "ABC" priority codes don't work." It's not clear to me whether he means all systems of marking priorities with A, B and C. or some particular system that involves doing that and using them in a particular way. It seems to me that he means they don't work for anyone, though mcogilvie says "When David Allen says it doesn't work, he means it doesn't work for everybody, all the time."

Having read GTD more than once, I interpret his position to be that priority coding doesn't work, period. That was the point I was trying to make in an earlier thread. That being said, DA is not the final word on what form your system takes. You are.

In any case, apparently there are a number of people (including, perhaps, David Allen) who find that AB priority codes or equivalent work for them, but not ABC priority codes. That's fine; but there are other people (including myself) who find that a larger number of gradations in recorded priorities of next actions is more effective for us.

cwoodgold, this is not directed at you personally but I think overall this discussion is failing to take into account that the four-fold model includes time available and your energy level as criteria for deciding on tasks. DA himself has said that it may make sense for some people to hard-code those into their lists. For example, if you are using a digital list manager you may be able to note the estimated time for each next action and filter on those that fit the time available.

My point is that we keep talking as though these context lists are these big scary things that can't be winnowed down. Once I've narrowed my choices to the available contexts (or decided to make a context available if appropriate), I pass over tasks that I have neither the time nor energy to do at that time. Then I arrive at a "hotlist," which is simply what the digital list manager I use calls those tasks that I have "starred" as the ones I think I'll be working on in the short term.

The reason I like hotlists is that I put them together in the moment and can eliminate them at a moment's notice if my priorities blow up. Which they often do. Not always, but often. Hotlists are just a way to help me remember which tasks I identified as the ones my gut told me I should focus on for the time being.

Ultimately if you feel your solution makes you maximally productive and minimizes your stress level who am I to tell you that you're wrong to do it your way? I can only state what has and has not worked for me.

To bcmyers2112: Thanks for saying "Your mileage may vary." and "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." I appreciate it. Yes, I think we're having trouble communicating. We can try to work through that and figure out what's going on; or we can drop it. It hasn't been my intention to criticize anyone, but to discuss ideas, opinions and reasons. I'm sorry if saying "straw man" very briefly came across as impolite; I'm not sure what's the best way to express that idea.

I've simply had bad experiences in forums in the past (it's actually been years since I actively participated in any online forums) where people would argue for its own sake. I don't know you, and therefore I'll try to put aside these things and focus on ideas.

We're not completely at odds here. You are correct that my temporary hotlists are a form of prioritization. The difference, if I understand you correctly, is that you prioritize next actions as you enter them in your lists. I decide on priorities on the fly and scrap my hotlists at a moment's notice if that's most appropriate.

I tend to believe my way is more effective but guess what? Your opinion about your system is the only one that matters in the end.

 

[goncalomata]

Sense of control

I think the bottom line is what do you want to see on your list of choices when you have doing time.

Totally agree. And I conclude from my clients experiences, that seing what they are NOT going to do is part of the reassuring feeling that their choice is ok, and they can focus on that.

If they blind themselves narrowing too much on contexts, they don't feel this safety. They will ask "how do I know if I want to change my context?". They may be at the office and decide they must get out.

It must be OK to "not be doing" whatever you are "not doing", and if you can't see what that is, to a certain degree, you may lose that assurance, and consequently your ability to focus a single choice.

Gonçalo Gil Mata
www.WHATsTheTRICK

 

[cwoodgold]

I agree. Thanks for taking us back up to the "what do you want to see when?" question. It's really a master key to making gtd work for each person.

Yes, I agree that that's a key (the key?) concept in GTD.

 

[Folke]

Totally agree. "What do you want to see when?". That's it.

And in my own mind this coincides exactly (for all practical purposes, anyway) with my definition of priority. (If I want to see something very often, it is probably for a reason, right?)

 

[cwoodgold]

Totally agree. And I conclude from my clients experiences, that seing what they are NOT going to do is part of the reassuring feeling that their choice is ok, and they can focus on that.

I think this can be considered an example of that: When I make a list of things to do for a day or a weekend, I like to have more things on it than there will be time to do them. That gives me a reassuring feeling, knowing what are the most important things I won't have time for: then I'm confident there's nothing more important than that being left out.