Reply to David Allen's post about ABC prioritization

[Barb]

In the old days

I think what D. Allen may have been referring to when he talked about priorities was, for many people, the world just moves too fast. I was a rabid Franklin/FC user and Daytimer before GTD. I used priority codes all the time back then, although I don't remember sticking too them all that well.

But hey, I think it's great that you've customized your system in such a way that it works well for you! Personally, I got tired of sifting through all my contexts lists all day long and started making a daily "punch list" a couple of years ago. First thing in the morning, I go through all of my lists and pull out what I'd really like to get done that day and put them on a single list. I don't prioritize beyond that, but that is a means of prioritizing in itself, is it not?

Good discussion. It's great to see people who take the framework of GTD and make it work in their OWN life without having to argue about it with everyone else.

 

[cwoodgold]

When David Allen says it doesn't work, he means it doesn't work for everybody, all the time.

Thanks for clarifying what you think he means. That explains why you don't disagree with him about it. If that's what he meant, I don't think he made it clear in the newsletter.

Just to clarify: I was taught an ABC method years ago and used it for a while (doing it daily); I'm not using it now. Now, I have context next-action lists, and when I add something to one of these lists, the position I write it on the page is a function of priority, and of time-and-energy. That way I don't have to read the whole list every time. I also do a "list of priorities for the weekend" and other systems.

I feel like his newsletters are basically just repeating the same thing over and over so I don't read them

I also find the newsletters very repetitive -- different from the books. What he seems to be aiming for in the newsletters is to leave out unnecessary details so that a person reading fast will focus on and retain a single memorable point which is emphasized. I think he overdoes this, almost achieving the ideal of having zero meaningful content. This is just my impression. I tend to feel frustrated by the newsletters -- I'm looking for something to learn or re-learn and not finding anything interesting.

First thing in the morning, I go through all of my lists and pull out what I'd really like to get done that day and put them on a single list. I don't prioritize beyond that, but that is a means of prioritizing in itself, is it not?.

Yes, I would say that's a way of prioritizing. I think that's similar to my "list of priorities for the weekend". I wonder: if you're going to do that, then maybe you don't need separate context lists, but can keep all your actions on one big list? Or maybe you use the context lists, e.g. if it's a weekend day you just look at the home list to pull items from onto your punch list, etc.

Presumably your priorities don't usually change so fast that you would need to re-do the punch list several times a day. I find that for me, almost all the time, priorities don't usually change much. For example: whether or not it's a good time to do an aerobic workout will change depending on whether I just ate and stuff, but what I consider its priority -- that is, its relative value compared to other actions -- doesn't change measurably. If something urgent comes up it jumps to the front of the line, but the relative priorities of other things in the line as compared to each other doesn't usually change when that happens. For some people, e.g. an emergency-room physician, priorities may often change a lot.

Maybe David Allen means something different when he talks about "priority". To me, something's priority is a separate quality from whether now is a good time to do it.

 

[Barb]

Yes, I would say that's a way of prioritizing. I think that's similar to my "list of priorities for the weekend". I wonder: if you're going to do that, then maybe you don't need separate context lists, but can keep all your actions on one big list? Or maybe you use the context lists, e.g. if it's a weekend day you just look at the home list to pull items from onto your punch list, etc.

Presumably your priorities don't usually change so fast that you would need to re-do the punch list several times a day. I find that for me, almost all the time, priorities don't usually change much. For example: whether or not it's a good time to do an aerobic workout will change depending on whether I just ate and stuff, but what I consider its priority -- that is, its relative value compared to other actions -- doesn't change measurably. If something urgent comes up it jumps to the front of the line, but the relative priorities of other things in the line as compared to each other doesn't usually change when that happens. For some people, e.g. an emergency-room physician, priorities may often change a lot.

Maybe David Allen means something different when he talks about "priority". To me, something's priority is a separate quality from whether now is a good time to do it.

I still use contexts lists because one big list would repel me. I like having them broken down into manageable chunks, but that's my preference. If each list had only, say, 5-10 items on it I'd just go back to one big list.

My priorities can and sometimes do change drastically with one phone call or email. I"m a self-employed consultant and client-driven so sometimes their emergency becomes mine....if it's a real emergency. But it's also not unusual for me not to finish everything on my punch list. If that happens, I just re-evaluate the next day with a new list. But so many of my clients have things coming at them so fast you'd think the building was on fire. I think it depends a lot on each individual circumstance. The average knowledge worker, working in a company and not self-employed, has way more to do these days than they can possibly get done. And being able to quickly pivot is very highly valued in a lot of workplaces. So I think it just varies with the circumstances.

 

[ArcCaster]

perhaps related to 'lack of' prioritizing -- a quote I wrote down from David's Making It All Work workshop: "everything is really 'someday maybe' except what you are doing right now."

the conclusion you can draw from the above is that you need a rich list of next actions, and you will choose from them when you get done with the current action, based on the latest and current state of your world.

Rob

 

[TesTeq]

Permanent and impermanent ABC priority codes.

In the newsletter, David Allen said, "The "ABC" priority codes don't work. Listing your top 10 things you think have to get done, in order, doesn't work." What does he mean by "doesn't work"?

It means exactly that: Assigning permanent ABC priority codes does not work because you priorities change in time and according to the context you are in. If you treat your ABC priority codes impermanent you have a lot of unnecessary maintenance work to constantly adjust them.

Re "Listing your top 10 things ..." This is very similar to my "list of priorities for the weekend" that I typically use. I list the things I want to get done that weekend, approximately in order of priority (with the order also somewhat influenced by expected chronological order). It works! It works very well for me: it helps me focus my time on productive things; it helps me get the most important things done; it helps me have a sense of confidence that I'm not forgetting important things; and it helps me have an energetic, motivated feeling. It also helps me find useful things to get done when I have a period of time with restrictions, such as while having to wait for something.

That's the misunderstanding. "Listing your top 10 things ..." is NOT similar to your "list of priorities for the weekend". It is a totally different kind of animal. Even David Allen sometimes uses a "do it today" short list.

There is no benefit in maintaining permanent ABC priority codes structure.

 

[bcmyers2112]

I think we're drowning in the details...

I think we're drowning in the details and losing the big picture here. In everything I've read from DA on the topic he's always been pretty clear: assigning any kind of priority code to items on your NA lists in his experience is ineffective because all it takes is one phone call from your boss to change your prioritization landscape.

I'm in sales and found this to be true years before I ever discovered GTD. At any time I can be working on what I consider to be one of my highest priority deals only to receive a call that another, larger deal that I thought was in the bag is falling apart. Or I could get an email from a client who wasn't supposed to be making a decision for another three months letting me know they want to a contract to sign by the end of the week! (These aren't hypotheticals: they've happened to me.)

My priorities can change in a heartbeat. That's why I agree with DA that you should simply maintain a complete inventory of what you need to do and trust your intuition about what your priorities are in the moment.

I use software that allows me to click and put a star on NA's that I intend to tackle for the next couple of hours (or in some cases I'll pick my tasks for the whole day). The nice thing about that is if something comes up that upsets my priorities, my NA lists are all intact and I can easily remove the stars. If your software doesn't have that capability, try creating a !Focus context. If you're using paper, write the actions you intend to focus on on an index card you can throw away if your best-laid plans are laid waste by the surprises we all encounter on a regular basis.

If someone feels priority coding works for them, that's their business. But in the interests of accuracy: DA advises against it, regardless of what form it takes. Because my personal, direct experience validates what he is saying I advise people against it as well. Try the four-fold model of choosing NAs as outlined in GTD, and make that final priority decision using the two questions Kelly suggested. I think you'll find the results will be positive and you'll be better able to adapt to rapidly changing situations that way.

 

[cwoodgold]

In everything I've read from DA on the topic he's always been pretty clear: assigning any kind of priority code to items on your NA lists in his experience is ineffective because all it takes is one phone call from your boss to change your prioritization landscape.

As I said above, "If something urgent comes up it jumps to the front of the line, but the relative priorities of other things in the line as compared to each other doesn't usually change when that happens." I don't find it ineffective. For me, recording priorities is effective, as I've explained. When urgent things come up, I just add them to a high-priority area of my system or do them immediately; I don't need to change the way anything else is organized.

Also, dividing things into this week's action lists versus someday/maybe, or putting things on a "hotlist" or list of things to do that day, or making an appointment with yourself to get something done, are also methods of prioritizing. If recording priorities was really always ineffective, David Allen wouldn't be recommending methods that involve doing things like that.

 

[TesTeq]

Permanent vs. impermanent priorities.

Also, dividing things into this week's action lists versus someday/maybe, or putting things on a "hotlist" or list of things to do that day, or making an appointment with yourself to get something done, are also methods of prioritizing. If recording priorities was really always ineffective, David Allen wouldn't be recommending methods that involve doing things like that.

Look at my comment about permanent vs. impermanent priorities Permanent and impermanent ABC priority codes.. "Hot lists" are for ad hoc "emergency" priorities while Project priorities are just an inefficient, hard to maintain overhead added to your lists.

 

[Gardener]

I suppose I effectively have four level of priorities - or, really, four levels of "when I want to see this". They depend on features of OmniFocus:

- On Hold/Someday/Maybe: Items that I don't want to actually delete, but that I also don't want to see right now or at any predictable time in the future. I give these an On Hold status in OmniFocus, so that they don't appear in any of my usual list. I see them when I review and if I specifically set my status choice to Remaining rather than Available. OmniFocus lets me set a review frequency for projects, so if something is really dubious I can give it a monthly, quarterly, even yearly frequency.

- Later: Items that I don't want to see now, but that I'm not comfortable tossing in the Someday slushpile. I give these a future Start Date in OmniFocus, which keeps them out of most lists but ensures that they will pop up even if I don't go look for them. Often, they pop up when their Start Date is reached and I give them another future Start Date because I'm not ready for them.

- Current: Items that I'm likely to actually work on in the near future. When I have too many of these to work, I give them a near-future Start date, so the line between Current and Later is blurry.

- RememberRemember: Items that outrank everything else, that I always want to see - essentially, emergencies. In a perfectly managed life, I would never have any items in this list. I used to implement this with a context because I used a fancy set of Perspectives that I could set to always use that context; I got too lazy to tend those Perspectives so I tend to use a flag.

Since I use OmniFocus, procedures that are influenced by how many times something needs to be copied are no longer relevant - there's no copying and lists can be reshuffled by changing settings. No, this isn't an ad for OmniFocus. But I guess part of my point is that your decisions can in part be based on how quickly certain changes can be made in your system.

 

[cwoodgold]

I suppose I effectively have four level of priorities - or, really, four levels of "when I want to see this".

That's interesting. Thanks for the description.

Here's one problem I've run into at least once: suppose in a similar system you have many actions connected with a particular project (or area of focus) and then suddenly you want to increase or decrease the priority of all those, relative to other stuff in the system. Some might be in Someday/Maybe; some might be in other levels. I guess in Omnifocus they could all be marked with flags indicating the project or area of focus they're connected to, so you could bring them all up and re-assign priorities. My system is on paper so that doesn't work. Perhaps I should be doing more cross-referencing. Anyway, most of the time this hasn't been a problem.

 

[Gardener]

I guess in Omnifocus they could all be marked with flags indicating the project or area of focus they're connected to

Yep, in OmniFocus each action is normally linked to a project - you sort of have to go out of your way to avoid having that link. And you can store projects in folders and folders in folders, so you can, if you choose, have them all organized by areas of focus.

Iso you could bring them all up and re-assign priorities. My system is on paper so that doesn't work. Perhaps I should be doing more cross-referencing. Anyway, most of the time this hasn't been a problem.

Yep; you could set the whole project to On Hold or give it a project-wide start date. If you want to do that to an entire area of focus, you could change each project. Even if you have to change each action individually, clicking a popdown or checkbox is easier than rewriting the action.

I can't imagine having a system on paper. I know that's the default GTD scenario, but my head explodes when I try to think of how I'd make it work.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Again, I think we're drowning in the details...

As I said above, "If something urgent comes up it jumps to the front of the line, but the relative priorities of other things in the line as compared to each other doesn't usually change when that happens." I don't find it ineffective.

Well, my experience has been different. In my line of work one phone call or email can change the whole landscape.

Also, dividing things into this week's action lists versus someday/maybe, or putting things on a "hotlist" or list of things to do that day, or making an appointment with yourself to get something done, are also methods of prioritizing. If recording priorities was really always ineffective, David Allen wouldn't be recommending methods that involve doing things like that.

I never said GTD was anti-prioritizing. The fourth criteria in the four-fold model for choosing what to do in the moment is... drum-roll please... priority. I guess I need to be more explicit: DA has always advised people against using priority codes in their next actions lists. I agree with him based on experience.

Hotlists are different than priority coding. See, if you include a priority code for every item in your next actions lists and then something blows up and forces you to re-prioritize, your next actions list is now inaccurate. That to me is too brittle a system to use. If my priorities blow up I just cast aside the hotlist. No big deal because my next actions lists are intact and are still real.

Look, I understand you like your system and I would never suggest you shouldn't do things the way you feel most comfortable with. I don't want to argue in circles, but in the interests of accuracy I feel it's worth pointing out that DA has always been clear that he feels it is a bad idea to use priority codes in your next actions lists. As for me, I still remain convinced that *not* coding your next actions is the most effective way to work -- not because DA says so, but because that's what a couple of decades of professional work has taught me. You disagree, and you've made clear the reasons why. I think at this point we should just shake hands (metaphorically speaking) and agree to disagree.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Also, dividing things into this week's action lists versus someday/maybe, or putting things on a "hotlist" or list of things to do that day, or making an appointment with yourself to get something done, are also methods of prioritizing. If recording priorities was really always ineffective, David Allen wouldn't be recommending methods that involve doing things like that.

No one said "recording of priorities" is always ineffective. I'm saying that using priority codes in your next actions lists is ineffective.

It seems like two separate issues are getting tangled up here. First of all, DA has *always* advised people against using priority codes in their next actions list. That's a fact. If you disagree with him then by all means do things your way. DA is a consultant and author, not God (nor has he ever claimed to be). But let's not mis-attribute things to him.

Second there is a world of difference between priority coding next actions and a someday/maybe list of hotlist. I can easily promote a someday/maybe to a project. Takes two seconds. A hotlist is just to help me remember which of the 150 - 200 next actions I've got are the ones I should focus on for the next hour or two. But I can cast aside the hotlist in a second and my next actions lists will still be intact. Whereas if I priority code some or all of my next actions, and my priorities change, my next actions list is no longer real.

I'm not asking you to change. I don't care that much about what you or anyone else does. I just felt it was worthwhile to clarify some things. If you think I'm wrong and priority coding works for you then by all means do it that way. I just think it's inaccurate for people to say a) DA doesn't advise against it (because he in fact does advise against it), or that priority coding your next actions is the same as using a someday/maybe or hotlist (because they are in fact different).

 

[mcogilvie]

I think we have beaten this topic to death. Maybe it's time to give it a rest?

 

[cwoodgold]

I just think it's inaccurate for people to say a) DA doesn't advise against it (because he in fact does advise against it), or that priority coding your next actions is the same as using a someday/maybe or hotlist (because they are in fact different).

Straw man.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Agreed

I think we have beaten this topic to death. Maybe it's time to give it a rest?

Yeah, whenever someone trots out stuff like "straw man" it means the discussion has jumped the shark. Moving on.

 

[cwoodgold]

I still use contexts lists because one big list would repel me.

I'm curious as to whether your punch list is one single list or is separated into context lists.

 

[Barb]

Punch list

I'm curious as to whether your punch list is one single list or is separated into context lists.

I'm just pulling things I want to get done on a single day into one list. As I use Omnifocus for the iPad as my main system, all I have to do to to accomplish that is flag it. My flagged list is my punch list for the day. Everything is still in it's original context. If I don't get it done, I just remove the flag and it goes to where it was.

 

[cwoodgold]

To David Allen and bcmyers2112: I'm sorry. I've realized that I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "straw man". I only meant that I thought you were arguing against a position that, as far as I was aware, nobody had been advocating. I didn't intend to imply that you were doing that deliberately.

 

[bcmyers2112]

No need to be sorry...

To David Allen and bcmyers2112: I'm sorry.

Can't speak for DA but from where I sit, no apology needed. I wasn't injured by what you said. It's been a good discussion. Lots of food for thought.

I'm pretty sure you and I don't think the same way. Which is great. You don't learn from only talking to those who think like you do. We don't even have to end up agreeing for the interaction to be worthwhile.

Put more simply: don't mind me and keep on keepin' on.