Hi Nick, If 'all' items that you want to sort are set to weekly goal, then utilising the urgency slider should work. But be careful about subtasks, if a parent has a weekly goal set or priority set the children inherit. So you would need to keep weekly goal at the task level. I would also look to keep priority as a whole at this level as well if you want to sort. Priority is sort of worked out on a cumulative score, top down.
All the best Steve ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: metroboy <[email protected]> To: MyLifeOrganized <[email protected]> Received: 13/03/2009 16:13:02 Subject: [MLO] Re: Prioritizing Items ToDo Today - Suggestions Wanted >Hi Steve, >Thanks for the tips. Do you think the Urgency slider >will work if >*all* my items are flagged as Weekly Goals? (That's >the only way that >items make the cut into my Today list currently.) >In any case, I will try using another flag (like an >"@Today" context) >and see how just using the Urgency slider works. >I had the same problems with using dates that you >mention, so I avoid >them where possible. However, I do have to use >Start Dates >occasionally so that items don't appear on my list >until they're >relevant. I'll see how re-ordering with the Urgency >slider works in a >mixed list (some with Start Dates, some without.) -- >will report back >and let you know. >Nick >On Mar 11, 2:36 pm, "Steve Wynn" ><[email protected]> >wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> Order does matter considerably with open lists - it >all comes down to deciding what to leave as well as >what to actually do. Which in essence I think is part >of the problem with those types of lists. >> >> The scenario you talk about I can quite easily get >working with just urgency in MLO but I would have to >utilise something else to flag the tasks for today. >The Weekly Goal in itself is like a super-charge on >priority - like having nitrous oxide in your car. While >that is operating you will never be able to order very >well at all with any of the sliders. You really would >have to drop that as you method of selection for daily >tasks. Even if a daily goal or something was added to >MLO it would probably be a similar scenario. >> >> If you can come up with an alternate method to >select your daily tasks, then just utilising Urgency >should work as you expect. For example every >standard task by default has a medium/normal >urgency. Move up the list - increase the urgency and >down the list decrease the urgency. Supercharge to >the top - add a Weekly Goal. >> >> If you sort by Urgency in the list you also have >other options of sorting as well, so you could sort by >caption - prefix items with A-, B- is an option, or use >symbols @!_+ etc. Or utilise the effort sliders as an >extra option for order. But I would only implement >extra options once the urgency order worked as you >expect. >> >> Now I have to be honest the simplest way to me to >achieve a today grouping is utilising dates - which is >a bit anti-GTD. But even with dates you have to >consider they in themselves add priority with regards >to the algorithm. So for ordering purposes you would >need to adopt consistent usage if you decide to group >by date. For example flag all tasks for today as >start/due today. Then the urgency slider will work as >desired. But if you have different start dates, then >that will also be a factor in the ordering. >> >> I would seriously consider looking at either Do It >Tomorrow (DIT) or Autofocus (AF) because they both >deal with Closed Lists. Which is like the principle >you are adopting in a way with your today list, but >the systems add more structure so that ordering is >less of an issue. Definitely worth checking out - I >would perhaps angle at DIT because it deals heavily >with interruptions, dealing with a day's work in a day >etc. Very good system. >> >> Like I say with just urgency you should be able to >order as expected but only once you remove the >Weekly Goal as your daily selection. >> >> All the best >> >> Steve >> >> ----- Original message ------------------------------------ >---- >> From: metroboy <[email protected]> >> To: MyLifeOrganized ><[email protected]> >> >> Received: 11/03/2009 18:58:32 >> Subject: [MLO] Re: Prioritizing Items ToDo Today - >Suggestions Wanted >> >> >Hi Steve, >> >> >I actually agree with most of what you say. >> >> >* I'm not really concerned at all with either >> >"Importance" or >> >"Urgency". >> >> >* I don't rank items in my outline by either or >these >> >factors, as I >> >agree with you that they can become a (not-so- >> >subtle) form of >> >procrastination. >> >> >* As I've mentioned before, I have a large outline >of >> >tasks, organized >> >by Project. I mark the Next Action in each Project >> >(using the Weekly >> >Goal flag), and then I filter by context (e.g., >@work). >> >The result is >> >my Today list -- which could be anywhere from 5 >to >> >15 items. >> >> >* Without interruptions, I could do all of these >tasks >> >in a day. >> >However, there are two factors that make me >want >> >to put this list in a >> >particular order: >> >> >1) I have mild ADHD, and I am easily distracted. >> >Every time I have to >> >re-scan that list of 5 to 15 items for my next task, >> >there's a risk >> >that I will careen off into thinking about my >priorities >> >for the day >> >all over again. To manage myself well, I really >need >> >to make this >> >decision ONCE for the day (subject to >interruptions, >> >see #2!), and get >> >on with the job of working my way down the task >list >> >one by one. >> >> >2) my job is (often and unpredictably) interrupt- >> >driven. A supervisor >> >can add one, two, or five tasks in a single call or >> >visit (and the >> >knock-on effect is that one, two or five OTHER >tasks >> >won't be able to >> >be completed today). Even if the supervisor >doesn't >> >add tasks, they >> >can instantly re-set my priorities for the day. > When >> >this happens, I >> >need to *instantly* reorder my list to reflect my >new >> >work reality. >> >This is the only circumstance where I ever even >touch >> >the "Importance" >> >or "Urgency" sliders. I use them as an (ugly) >kludge >> >to get my items >> >to move up or down the To-do list. As I've >mentioned >> >before, more >> >often than not I become frustrated with this >process >> >-- I can't get >> >the items to land where I want, or the controls >are >> >too twitchy. I >> >often give up and go to a paper list, leaving MLO >> >aside until things >> >calm down again. >> >> >This frustrates me, as I want MLO to be a useful >tool >> >for me >> >*especially* in times of high stress when there are >> >many moving parts >> >to my day. >> >> >I understand that people may organize their day in >> >completely >> >different ways from mine. I understand that many >> >people have complete >> >control over their day and can work on an >> >uninterrupted basis (in fact >> >my part-time freelance job is like that). However, >I >> >don't think that >> >the way I am organizing my day -- or the way in >which >> >I would like to >> >use MLO -- is an unreasonable or an unusual one. I >> >hew pretty closely >> >to GTD principles. I don't use any prioritization in >> >order to arrive >> >at my "Today" list; it's mainly flaggin "Next >Actions" >> >in my active >> >Projects. But once I *do* determine my Today list >for >> >each day, it >> >helps my concentration a great deal if I am able to >> >quickly shuffle >> >them into the "correct" order for the day -- based >on >> >my intuition and >> >my subtle understanding of my job. That's all that >I'm >> >asking for. >> >> >thanks for listening, >> >> >Nick >> >> >On Mar 11, 5:50 am, "Steve Wynn" >> ><[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> >> Overall the target of MLO to my mind is not >really >> >systems that are heavily concerned with ordering >of >> >lists. The order is to an extent obtained more by >the >> >grouping of similar items - via things like context. >> > The general idea being you create 'batches' of >items >> >that are related in some way. >> >> >> I would say if order is important then prioritise >on >> >only one factor in MLO - Urgency. Forget >importance >> >because this throws too many different factors >into >> >the mix with regards to the priority algorithm. > Only >> >utilise urgency on tasks, not parent items - and >> >remove the importance aspect altogether. Sort >your >> >list's based on Goal and then Urgency. That way >by >> >quickly flagging something as a weekly goal it will >> >pop to the top of the list. By default have all tasks >> >set to normal urgency. Then moving tasks is just >a >> >case of increasing/decreasing the urgency slider. > Of >> >course colour coding/formatting can also be >utilised >> >now to highlight specific items. >> >> >> But I would question the use of ordering if a >'Today' >> >list is in play. If you have a list of items you will >do >> >today, then why would ordering matter? Ordering >> >only matters if you plan on not doing some of the >> >items on your Today list. Which then I think it sort >of >> >negates, to my mind, having a 'Today' list in the >first >> >place. >> >> >> Priority ordering as far as understand in GTD is >a >> >minor factor. Next action choice being determined >by >> >context, time, energy and then priority. I don't >think >> >the idea is to have ordered context based lists >that >> >you work top to bottom. Applying priority in that >> >manner is in a way reducing the free-form aspect >of >> >GTD as a whole, to my mind. >> >> >> I think Covey users have a case for more priority >> >based ordering - although a lot can be achieved by >> >the use of contexts. But an A1,A2, B1, B2 >priority >> >method would certainly help them I would >imagine. >> >That is if we have any users of Covey? But then >their >> >major grouping is really based on Roles which can >be >> >achieved via context. >> >> >> Overall I don't think ordering by importance or >> >urgency really works. Much better to my mind to >> >have a list of items you 'will-do' today - no >excuses. >> > Then ordering gets thrown out of the window. But >to >> >complete that list of items you will probably have >to >> >adopt different methods of working, make sure >the >> >list is Closed and no new items unless same day >> >urgent are added etc. >> >> >> I would also consider if the order of a list is >> >stopping you taking action then it might be >another >> >subtle form of procrastination. I would imagine >you >> >already really know what your priorities are for >the >> >day and don't really need an ordered list to keep >you >> >on track. >> >> >> I recently adopted Autofocus (AF), after a few >> >difficulties, this system has no order with regards >to >> >lists. But utilises a series of Closed Lists, which >> >nullify the need for ordering altogether. But the >> >system is hyper productive and you can process a >> >large volume of tasks in a very short space of >time. >> >So I would be a little wary that applying too much >> >order to lists, it might actually have the opposite >> >effect and be counterproductive. >> >> >> All the best >> >> >> Steve >> >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG -www.avg.com >> >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: >270.11.10/1995 - >> >Release Date: 03/11/09 08:28:00 > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - >Release Date: 03/13/09 05:59:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
