What is the thoughts in using time-boxing in GTD Methodology.

Zax Teh

Registered
I'm exploring how best to schedule my time. Currently have to-do list for the tasks. Came across the method of time-boxing. I'm wondering did anyone have experience in using time-boxing for scheduling and does it help in implementing GTD Methodology? What are your thoughts on this? Thanks!!
 

Longstreet

Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
I'm exploring how best to schedule my time. Currently have to-do list for the tasks. Came across the method of time-boxing. I'm wondering did anyone have experience in using time-boxing for scheduling and does it help in implementing GTD Methodology? What are your thoughts on this? Thanks!!
I avidly block time on my calendar for important projects, objectives, etc. I don't put actions on the calendar. If you are like me with a shared Office 365 Outlook calendar where meetings magically appear everywhere, it is important to protect your time. Here is a quote from David Allen in a recent posting of his:

"It’s like time-blocking — if you know you need two hours of uninterrupted time to complete the business plan due to the bank by Friday, and other people may be grabbing your calendared time, then blocking off two hours on Wednesday afternoon might be what you have to do to get that off your mind".

That is my philosophy as well. I do NOT block out every hour - it is important to have some white space to breathe and decide in the moment what is best to do next. I hope this helps.
 

enyonam

Registered
I have been experimenting with time-boxing for several months now. I call it time-blocking.

I have a theme for each day - Markets, Delivery, Operations, Network and Personal. I also have 5 blocks per day - Deep Work, Monitor, Talk, Scan and Shallow Work. Each block is 90 minutes and I plan to take a break in between each one ... or at least I try to. If I have any meetings I try to schedule them in a block so that my breaks are about the same time every day.

That's my hard landscape only. I do not put my next actions on my calendar. I still have a list manager (in Asana). All my projects are assigned to Monitor - that's when I look at my universe of projects for that theme and make decisions and plans. It's also when I schedule project review meetings. I think have for each next action, the block I want to tackle it in.

So when I get to the block, my next actions list is already narrowed to the block I am in. If I finish the next actions for that block I can always go snack on another block. The nice thing is that I know that I am giving each of these areas of my work and personal life at least 90 minutes a week.

This is not set in stone - if I have a ton of delivery work I can always switch out some of the other blocks. The nice thing though is that I am clear what I am trading for the time to do delivery work, and I am limiting each work sprint to 90 minutes.

So far I do like time-blocking but still tweaking it.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
 

samuel.d.kang

Registered
Time-blocking in essence is just another appointment on your calendar or hard landscape. The only difference - and the most critical difference - is it's a commitment to you, yourself, and no one else.

It's much easier to break commitments with yourself because the consequences do not manifest themselves as obviously as when you break a 3PM meeting with your boss or partner. If you can't uphold a commitment, usually you'll try to renegotiate with the other party or you'll face social consequences. Remember, a renegotiated commitment is not a broken commitment.

Time-blocking needs to be held to the same standard, if not internal dissonance occurs and you can grow numb to your time-blocks. The danger of breaking your commitment to yourself is that you can potentially grow numb to your calendar as a whole since you have a mixed log of external commitments and internal commitments that you may or may no commit to! Now you're risking overseeing and becoming numb to your external time commitments to others.

When you decide to time-block be sure it's an actual time-block and not a tickler or a next action that you want to finish or was deferred. When the boundaries between these three become blurred, it becomes very easy to break commitments to yourself. It's okay to renegotiate your time-blocks as long as you know why you are renegotiating and you're at ease just like when you reschedule an appointment with others. But if you're rescheduling/breaking the same time-block over and over again then probably it's not really an agenda with yourself but rather a tickler, a next action - perhaps even a project without a well defined next action or even a next action/project you're no longer really committed to (we can dive deep here haha).

Lastly, time-blocking according to the Three Fold Nature of Work during your daily/weekly review will help. If you find yourself constantly breaking or renegotiating your time-blocks you're likely micromanaging and losing perspective and thus control. Take a step back and really reflect on how much time do you have/need for defining work, doing predefined work, and doing ad hoc work. This will give you a higher horizon to actually time-block realistically and also value your blocked time more. Too much broken or renegotiated time-blocks usually mean you may not be aware of how much time your next actions actually take, you're over committed, and/or you're not protecting or allowing enough time for ad hoc next actions.

Hope this helps. Long story short, try it out and during your weekly review reflect on it if it worked for you or not, and alter it according to
your situation with honest self reflection.

Best,
Sam
 
Last edited:

Longstreet

Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
I have been experimenting with time-boxing for several months now. I call it time-blocking.

I have a theme for each day - Markets, Delivery, Operations, Network and Personal. I also have 5 blocks per day - Deep Work, Monitor, Talk, Scan and Shallow Work. Each block is 90 minutes and I plan to take a break in between each one ... or at least I try to. If I have any meetings I try to schedule them in a block so that my breaks are about the same time every day.

That's my hard landscape only. I do not put my next actions on my calendar. I still have a list manager (in Asana). All my projects are assigned to Monitor - that's when I look at my universe of projects for that theme and make decisions and plans. It's also when I schedule project review meetings. I think have for each next action, the block I want to tackle it in.

So when I get to the block, my next actions list is already narrowed to the block I am in. If I finish the next actions for that block I can always go snack on another block. The nice thing is that I know that I am giving each of these areas of my work and personal life at least 90 minutes a week.

This is not set in stone - if I have a ton of delivery work I can always switch out some of the other blocks. The nice thing though is that I am clear what I am trading for the time to do delivery work, and I am limiting each work sprint to 90 minutes.

So far I do like time-blocking but still tweaking it.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
This is so cool! Thanks for sharing - it has given me some ideas to ponder over.
 

Longstreet

Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
Time-blocking in essence is just another appointment on your calendar or hard landscape. The only difference - and the most critical difference - is it's a commitment to you, yourself, and no one else.

It's much easier to break commitments with yourself because the consequences do not manifest themselves as obviously as when you break a 3PM meeting with your boss or partner. If you can't uphold a commitment, usually you'll try to renegotiate with the other party or you'll face social consequences. Remember, a renegotiated commitment is not a broken commitment.

Time-blocking needs to be held to the same standard, if not internal dissonance occurs and you can grow numb to your time-blocks. The danger of breaking your commitment to yourself is that you can potentially grow numb to your calendar as a whole since you have a mixed log of external commitments and internal commitments that you may or may no commit to! Now you're risking overseeing and becoming numb to your external time commitments to others.

When you decide to time-block be sure it's an actual time-block and not a tickler or a next action that you want to finish or was deferred. When the boundaries between these three become blurred, it becomes very easy to break commitments to yourself. It's okay to renegotiate your time-blocks as long as you know why you are renegotiating and you're at ease just like when you reschedule an appointment with others. But if you're rescheduling/breaking the same time-block over and over again then probably it's not really an agenda with yourself but rather a tickler, a next action - perhaps even a project without a well defined next action or even a next action/project you're no longer really committed to (we can dive deep here haha).

Lastly, time-blocking according to the Three Fold Nature of Work during your daily/weekly review will help. If you find yourself constantly breaking or renegotiating your time-blocks you're likely micromanaging and losing perspective and thus control. Take a step back and really reflect on how much time do you have/need for defining work, doing predefined work, and doing ad hoc work. This will give you a higher horizon to actually time-block realistically and also value your blocked time more. Too much broken or renegotiated time-blocks usually mean you may not be aware of how much time your next actions actually take, you're over committed, and/or you're not protecting or allowing enough time for ad hoc next actions.

Hope this helps. Long story short, try it out and during your weekly review reflect on it if it worked for you or not, and alter it according to
your situation with honest self reflection.

Best,
Sam
This too is so cool! So nicely stated about the philosophy behind time-blocking. Very nicely done!
 

enyonam

Registered
This is so cool! Thanks for sharing - it has given me some ideas to ponder over.
Nice to see you about Prof Longstreet =D I'm glad it peaked your interest. Do let me know if you do anything with it and how that goes. I'm in tweak mode myself.
 

Zax Teh

Registered
I have been experimenting with time-boxing for several months now. I call it time-blocking.

I have a theme for each day - Markets, Delivery, Operations, Network and Personal. I also have 5 blocks per day - Deep Work, Monitor, Talk, Scan and Shallow Work. Each block is 90 minutes and I plan to take a break in between each one ... or at least I try to. If I have any meetings I try to schedule them in a block so that my breaks are about the same time every day.

That's my hard landscape only. I do not put my next actions on my calendar. I still have a list manager (in Asana). All my projects are assigned to Monitor - that's when I look at my universe of projects for that theme and make decisions and plans. It's also when I schedule project review meetings. I think have for each next action, the block I want to tackle it in.

So when I get to the block, my next actions list is already narrowed to the block I am in. If I finish the next actions for that block I can always go snack on another block. The nice thing is that I know that I am giving each of these areas of my work and personal life at least 90 minutes a week.

This is not set in stone - if I have a ton of delivery work I can always switch out some of the other blocks. The nice thing though is that I am clear what I am trading for the time to do delivery work, and I am limiting each work sprint to 90 minutes.

So far I do like time-blocking but still tweaking it.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
Thanks for sharing! It's great idea to block themes rather then next task. Next task would be very overwhelming in my opinion.
 

Zax Teh

Registered
Time-blocking in essence is just another appointment on your calendar or hard landscape. The only difference - and the most critical difference - is it's a commitment to you, yourself, and no one else.

It's much easier to break commitments with yourself because the consequences do not manifest themselves as obviously as when you break a 3PM meeting with your boss or partner. If you can't uphold a commitment, usually you'll try to renegotiate with the other party or you'll face social consequences. Remember, a renegotiated commitment is not a broken commitment.

Time-blocking needs to be held to the same standard, if not internal dissonance occurs and you can grow numb to your time-blocks. The danger of breaking your commitment to yourself is that you can potentially grow numb to your calendar as a whole since you have a mixed log of external commitments and internal commitments that you may or may no commit to! Now you're risking overseeing and becoming numb to your external time commitments to others.

When you decide to time-block be sure it's an actual time-block and not a tickler or a next action that you want to finish or was deferred. When the boundaries between these three become blurred, it becomes very easy to break commitments to yourself. It's okay to renegotiate your time-blocks as long as you know why you are renegotiating and you're at ease just like when you reschedule an appointment with others. But if you're rescheduling/breaking the same time-block over and over again then probably it's not really an agenda with yourself but rather a tickler, a next action - perhaps even a project without a well defined next action or even a next action/project you're no longer really committed to (we can dive deep here haha).

Lastly, time-blocking according to the Three Fold Nature of Work during your daily/weekly review will help. If you find yourself constantly breaking or renegotiating your time-blocks you're likely micromanaging and losing perspective and thus control. Take a step back and really reflect on how much time do you have/need for defining work, doing predefined work, and doing ad hoc work. This will give you a higher horizon to actually time-block realistically and also value your blocked time more. Too much broken or renegotiated time-blocks usually mean you may not be aware of how much time your next actions actually take, you're over committed, and/or you're not protecting or allowing enough time for ad hoc next actions.

Hope this helps. Long story short, try it out and during your weekly review reflect on it if it worked for you or not, and alter it according to
your situation with honest self reflection.

Best,
Sam
Thanks! very well broken down. Your last advice on try it out and review them weekly and alter it accordingly. I tend to want to get it right at 1st and has stopped me moving forward. Thanks for the reminder! Got to treat it like an experiment :)
 

Cpu_Modern

Registered
Of course in a more free roaming area like time management the technical terms are not sharply defined. That's okay. It's just about not confusing concepts and talking past each other.

My assumption is that the OP means with time-boxing what is commonly referred to as time-boxing, but of course nobody has an obligation to use the terms that way. So, time-boxing is not scheduling. Time-boxing is working on a task exactly for a pre-determined length of time.

This is IMHO a good device to combat procrastination, because there is always the end in sight. If for instance you committed to a time-boxing of 30 min doing dreaded task X, you are probably not procrastinate on it, because it's a "fair deal" kind of affair.

This underling principle of "end in sight" is also harnessed in Neil Fiore's "Unschedule."

Additionally time-boxing is also useful in goal setting for projects where the quantification of work is hard to come by. One can always set a goal of so many time-boxing units and the see how far that goes.

A very good system based on time-boxing is presented in Mark Forster's book "Get Everything Done."

On the web advanced time-boxing methods can be found under the term "Pomodoro Technique."

All these things can be very well used in conjunction with a GTD system.

Having said all this, personally I absolutely HATE time-boxing and never use it.
 

enyonam

Registered
Thanks! very well broken down. Your last advice on try it out and review them weekly and alter it accordingly. I tend to want to get it right at 1st and has stopped me moving forward. Thanks for the reminder! Got to treat it like an experiment :)
Yup! I'm very much in that "reformed perfectionist" camp. I also used to spend oodles of time trying to get something right the first time but now experience has taught me that for many things ... not everything ... but for many things, evolving your way gets you much closer to perfect, quicker. The phrase that helped me for years was "Perfect is the enemy of good enough." Perhaps that helps you too. I usually have the theme or quote inspiration I am focused on stuck to my computer monitor. ... It seems to work.
 

Zax Teh

Registered
Yup! I'm very much in that "reformed perfectionist" camp. I also used to spend oodles of time trying to get something right the first time but now experience has taught me that for many things ... not everything ... but for many things, evolving your way gets you much closer to perfect, quicker. The phrase that helped me for years was "Perfect is the enemy of good enough." Perhaps that helps you too. I usually have the theme or quote inspiration I am focused on stuck to my computer monitor. ... It seems to work.
"Perfect is the enemy of good enough." yup! this is what I need..

Evolve in time is the key.. :)

Thanks Enyonam!
 

Michael Ramone

Registered
I am personally very, very careful about time boxing. For me, it’s a last resort for when absolutely nothing else can get a situation off my mind.

There was a time when I relied far too heavily on time boxing and used it immediately for organizing every next action that wasn’t extremely granular—i.e., if the next action on a project was “Set up desk,” I would go, “This isn’t a single physical act, per se, so I’ll put it onto my calendar!” This resulted in a swift breakdown of my calendar’s sacred nature.

Part of the issue comes from adhering too strictly to the classic sets of project and action verbs. “Set up desk,” if it truly is the very next step to take on a project, is a fine next action, even though “Set up” is traditionally considered a project verb. Recording real next actions is more important to me than following any rules regarding how to record them; I just ensure that what I'm putting on my next actions lists are next actions and not projects.

Although time boxing may have its place, I, from personal experience, recommend avoiding it if you can. But if you truly feel you’ll keep your self-appointment, by all means, go for it!
 

irenesanzv

Registered
Not much to add to all the great comments, I would say just avoid doing it too much and using it as an excuse not to review next actions lists as often as you should because you already have a schedule in the calendar, that doesn't help developing the habit.
 

Gardener

Registered
I'm increasingly thinking that time boxing needs multiple clarifying definitions, because scheduling actions is not how I define time boxing--unless they're really big, long actions. I define it, instead, as blocking off a section of time that is intended for a particular goal, whether that's a given project, or "deep work", or a specific context, or something of the sort.

Possible definitions:

TB1: Blocking off a chunk of time, often a substantial amount (one, two, four hours), to focus on a defined goal without interruptions. ("I don't take meetings for Wednesday or Friday afternoons--that's when I work on my publications.")
TB2: Scheduling specific actions to be performed at specific times on one's calendar. ("On Tuesdays, from 10am-10:45 am, I update the department budget. From 10:45-11am I upload it and move the last week's budget documents to archive. From 11am-11:20am I...")
TB3: Working on a specific task for a specific amount of time, often a modest amount, and then stopping. Pomodoro, for example.

Are there more?
 

Michael Ramone

Registered
I'm increasingly thinking that time boxing needs multiple clarifying definitions, because scheduling actions is not how I define time boxing--unless they're really big, long actions. I define it, instead, as blocking off a section of time that is intended for a particular goal, whether that's a given project, or "deep work", or a specific context, or something of the sort.

Possible definitions:

TB1: Blocking off a chunk of time, often a substantial amount (one, two, four hours), to focus on a defined goal without interruptions. ("I don't take meetings for Wednesday or Friday afternoons--that's when I work on my publications.")
TB2: Scheduling specific actions to be performed at specific times on one's calendar. ("On Tuesdays, from 10am-10:45 am, I update the department budget. From 10:45-11am I upload it and move the last week's budget documents to archive. From 11am-11:20am I...")
TB3: Working on a specific task for a specific amount of time, often a modest amount, and then stopping. Pomodoro, for example.

Are there more?
I use the Pomodoro technique sometimes, but I rarely record that on my calendar; it more often just happens naturally after I start to work on an item from an action list.

I don’t really see what you mean by there being different definitions of time boxing—the ones you present all seem to me to be different wordings of the same thing. I think what you may be alluding to is different intentions behind using time boxing as a tool.

As far as I’m aware, time boxing is known in the GTD world as blocking out time on a calendar for an action or commitment that isn’t truly time-specific. They’re self-appointments. The only one holding you to them is yourself—which is why I, at least, always go with as-soon-as-I-can categories whenever I can.

I wouldn’t consider a true time-specific action or commitment an instance of time boxing. If an action really must be done at a specific time, it can’t go anywhere else other than on a calendar (or in a functionally similar tool). If an action can be done at any time (perhaps before a deadline), but for some reason one still puts it on their calendar in a time-specific slot, I would consider that time boxing.
 

Gardener

Registered
I don’t really see what you mean by there being different definitions of time boxing—the ones you present all seem to me to be different wordings of the same thing. I think what you may be alluding to is different intentions behind using time boxing as a tool.
I'm distinguishing between:

1) Scheduling lots and lots of very specific tasks to very specific times on your calendar. (Which I think is a strategy doomed to failure.)
2) Defending large blocks of time on your calendar as opportunities to focus, free of interruptions and intrusions. (Which I think is a dandy strategy.)

I see those as very different.
 

Gardener

Registered
I'm distinguishing between:

1) Scheduling lots and lots of very specific tasks to very specific times on your calendar. (Which I think is a strategy doomed to failure.)
2) Defending large blocks of time on your calendar as opportunities to focus, free of interruptions and intrusions. (Which I think is a dandy strategy.)

I see those as very different.
Replying to myself: Let's imagine that you're working toward becoming a concert pianist.

1) would be "From 12:15pm to 1:12pm I will practice Brahms Third Racket."
2) would be "I practice every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 1pm to 6pm."

Edited to add: I realize I left out the Pomodoro interpretation. Even though this may be the most accurate definition of time-boxing, it's not what I think of as time-boxing, so I left it out in the cold.
 
Last edited:

Michael Ramone

Registered
Replying to myself: Let's imagine that you're working toward becoming a concert pianist.

1) would be "From 12:15pm to 1:12pm I will practice Brahms Third Racket."
2) would be "I practice every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 1pm to 6pm."

Edited to add: I realize I left out the Pomodoro interpretation. Even though this may be the most accurate definition of time-boxing, it's not what I think of as time-boxing, so I left it out in the cold.
It certainly is a battle between “none of my actions have to be done right now, so I’ll wait” and “I don’t have unlimited time, so I’ll schedule my actions.” I lean toward the former, being lazy and entirely incapable of acting in the face of even the slightest unreal deadline or schedule. Anyone more disciplined than I am (hopefully most people!) may very well use time boxing without problems.

For things like instrumental practice, I find that next actions lists are just as good as, if not better than, time boxing. Think about it: The end result—you having played guitar for 2 hours, for example—can still occur regardless of whether you schedule time for it on a calendar or put it on a next actions list. The benefit to using a next actions list for organizing such things (day-specific slots on a calendar work too, if they're deserved) is that you can stop whenever you need or want to and not feel guilty about having broken a false time-specific commitment.

Now, if playing guitar for two hours daily is critical to some urgent project and/or higher outcome, and you’re so busy with absolutely every other available time slot that you must block time for it on your calendar, I can see this as being proportional to the need. Such an instance would not represent a false time-specific commitment, but a very real one—hence why I don't call these instances time boxing.

If, on the other hand, you have enough time in your typical day for you to choose between several different opportunities for you to play guitar for 2 hours, yet you’ve blocked out specifically 5–7 p.m. for the task, then your map no longer matches the territory, and you've violated the have-to nature of the calendar. I would prefer day-specific slots or actions lists for such cases, depending on the nature of the commitment.

Cal Newport missed this in his article related to the subject,“Getting (Unremarkable) Things Done: The Problem With David Allen’s Universalism”. He falls victim to believing that next actions are exclusively brief, mindless activites like "Refill stapler," "Water plants," or "Email John re: budget" (it sucks, too, because this fallacy seems to drive away from GTD many people who would've otherwise benefited from it). In truth, there is no inherent time limit on next actions; they're simply the next physical things you must do to move current reality toward the one you desire. They might last 5 seconds, or 5 hours. They could be "Draft next chapter in book," "Watch Star Wars: The Phantom Menace," or "Mix song X" (assuming those are the next actions needing to be taken on projects and not projects themselves). The only time limit that may exist for them will be born by other commitments, which, in dire straits, can warrant time-specific slots.

To be super clear, my definition of time-boxing is the blocking out of a time-specific slot on a calendar for a commitment that is not truly specific to that time. I find that to be extremely unproductive in my own life and counter to a lot of what GTD is about.
 
Top