Another interpretation (from a more jaundiced view) of what Steve is saying is that using Weekly Goal breaks the Computerised Scoring algorithm (something I have moaned about in the past) because of the way in which it recursively boosts the score of everything that is under the item to which you have applied the weekly goal.
Ie: it boost score of the item, all the children of the item inherit that boosted score (good) and then for some bizarre reason MLO applies the weekly goal boost again on top of this (bad) which means that the children (and their children) always end up getting much higher scores than other activities in the work breakdown structure which happen to be higher in the tree. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of metroboy > Sent: 13 March 2009 4:13 p > To: MyLifeOrganized > 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 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
