Thanks again for the detailed reply. Sadly I have tried both schemes and can't make either work for me. And there is a steady stream (trickle?) of other people posting similar comments.
Although the last time, I tried CSA I was also using the Weekly Goal which from what you have said, distorts the behaviour significantly. I would definitely put myself in the 'too many tasks' category so perhaps I should go back and try it again I am not sure that I understand the math. I tried Googling for GLOB sorter and couldn't find anything. If the CSA is based on a more widely used set of theories I would be interested to read a bit more - do you have any references? Would I be right in thinking that what you have as your top level tasks is quite important to the CSA. At the moment, I start off with a Home/Work split and then split each of these into things like Single Step Actions, Daily Routines, etc. What do you have or would you advise to have as the top level tasks and what principles would you use in terms of how you organise tasks under this. Is there a template that works well with CSA? And given what you say about the CSA not being suited to sorting things down to the level of individual tasks, it maybe points back to the need for a layering a manual sort, which I desparately need, on top of this (and I believe Andrey is thinking about) - ie: you use CSA to bring the most important stuff to the top and then use manual sort to put into an order in which you want to tackle things today. Thanks again for taking the time to post. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ratz > Sent: 16 July 2009 4:02 a > To: MyLifeOrganized > Subject: [MLO] Re: Computed-Score Priority and Start Dates > > > > Yes we seem to have fun explaining this topic, but the > software does do the right thing from a fuzzy logic project > management task break down approach. > > Let's have a little philosophy of the methods discussion I > think that will help you see what CSA does what it does. > > We have 2 scheme's > > (a) Hierarchal is a method that uses and arithmetic > progression down the tree using addition. That method assumes > that all tasks are rated against the universe at large on a > fixed scale. This is traditional prioritization with a few > necessities for making mass changes and boost whole groups > with the goals functions and a little hierarchal smoothing > thrown in. This method is great if you have less than 200 > tasks and if you are disciplined and consistent I bet you can > do 500 without tiring of the effort of prioritizing > correctly. This method is Andrey's baby and it works great > for what it was designed to do. I like it! and so do a lot of people. > > (b) CSA is a method, that use an arithmetic progress down the > tree using multiplication of logarithmic reversible number > pairs to calculate a relative priority based on minimal data > entered around a localized position in the tree. (sounds sexy > doesn't it? or just Bs? actually it just some math theory > that happens to be pretty it's a GLOB Sorter if you want to > get technical it cluster "like data" into groups of similar > values ). Under this model you set each tasks Importance and > urgency relative to it's immediate parent only. How important > and how urgent is this individual task to completing the > parent task; and only the parent task; not the project at a > whole, that's the KEY the parent task only. That allows for > faster data entry within huge outlines with 500 to 5000s of > tasks. Because you don't have to evaluate the task against > your whole life; just it's importance and urgency to the > parent task, and when it's do. That is localized positioning. > IF you set your values that way the CSA will give you very > accurate results for priorities. I know I've been using it > for almost 10 years as lifebalance uses a simpler form of > this approach and I started on that tool in 98. This scheme > is designed specifically for people that have to make > decisions about what gets done AND what does NOT get done. > Just because it's due today doesn't mean it should be done. > If figuring out which tasks should even be reviewed on a give > day is a challenge, then CSA is the method you want. The CSA > gets you a nice list of likely suspects to review. This lines > up nicely with GTD that says to own you own intuitive > prioritizations, so we often recommend CSA to GTDers' because > it make a first WHACK at you list for you; and reduces the > number of items you have to consider for you final selection > of the correct task to do. The problems usually creep in when > people try to use CSA in a manner other than intended; it > will not make your decisions for you and it won't process a > really short list all that effectively that's why tiny short > lists give weird results; it wasn't designed to do what > people often try to test. It's also not a GANTT chart and > it won't schedule time linear linked tasks; if you need that > see MS project and numerous other tools or fall back to > Hierarchal. CSA will always get the top 15-25 things to do > in the right cluster at the top of the list out of 1000s of > tasks. That's what it's designed to do. Get you a todo list > where the top screen without scrolling down at all has the > things that should be review and action'ed as necessary. The > order of that screen will never be perfect because only your > intuition at the time of choosing will tell you which of the > top 15 things is the right one to do right now right here. > > That's what the method does. It really can't be bent to do > other things. But people loose site of that and start to > blend the two different methods characteristics. I you expect > the computed todo list to be ordered 1, 2, 3 ,4 exactly like > you are expecting it you will be disappointed. Don't pound > nails with a screw driver; use Hierarchal instead. > > The anomalies I was fixing this week where messing up the > output of the data; and that was true of both large data sets > and small data sets. People do get confused when I jump in to > fix something when that conversation started out as a > discussion of a short list. I'm usually not trying to fix the > short list results. Rather I see something that makes me > realize there is a problem with the core approach for it's > intended goal. > > > > On Jul 15, 5:16 pm, RichardCollings <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bob > > > > Thanks very much for taking the time to reply in such > detail. I can > > undertand your reluctance to go over ground that was > clearly covered > > in some detail some time ago (before I got involved with MLO). > > > > I would be very interested to know if one of the sliders does not > > apply a recursive boost because this is what I want (desparately). > > > > What is frustrating for me is that when I have posted previously on > > this topic nobody has been able to explain the reasoning behing the > > recursive boost - why from a project planning/business > point of view, > > lower level leaf tasks in a hierarchical structure should > be made more > > important than other leaf tasks that appear higher up in the > > hierarchy? > > > > ie: Going back to my example: > > > > > > > > Project A > > > > > > Task 1 > > > > > > Task 2 > > > > > > Task 3 > > > > > > Task 4 > > > > why should Tasks 3 and 4 be made more important than Task 1 when I > > boost Project A? > > > > I agree that there are lots of different ways of exploiting the > > algorithm but there does not appear to be a way of handling > my simple > > requirement which is > > > > <<When I boost a top level task, I want all the subtasks > to receive > > the same level of boost irrespective of their depth in the > hierarchy > > below that higher level task. ie: they retain their > relatively levels > > of importance/urgency>> > > > > This does not seem an unreasonable request. Incidentally, I am > > pretty certain that the hierarchical scoring method does meet this > > requirement. > > > > If you can throw any more light on this, I would be very grateful. > > > > Many thanks. > > > > Richard > > > > On Jul 15, 10:15 pm, ratz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Honestly.....I'd have to go look again; I really haven't thought > > > about urgency in a long time. I believe after thinking > about it that > > > importance is recursive and urgency is not but I will > check an make > > > a authoritative statement. later. ( I was working in a different > > > part of the algorithm that runs in parrallel so I didn't have to > > > concern myself with thinking about the urgency topic) > > > > > I will say that it's highly unlikely we'll change the way urgency > > > works because it does what it was suppose to do and and people > > > expect it to do what it does now. So don't spend a ton of time > > > formulating an argument; we've been through that 4 years ago. > > > > > Fixing the weekly goal is the only real topic open for > discussion. > > > I'll review urgency only so much as finding the right way > to fix the > > > weekly goal issue my above thoughts were open thinking on the fly > > > that doesn't mean they are the correct solution; just me thinking > > > out loud; only so much as the weekly goal issue is concerned and > > > sometimes I draw bad ideas when doing that; we sort through that > > > when I try and implement them. > > > > > Completely separate from thoughts of the weekly goal > > > > > If urgency as implemented isn't to your liking you have several > > > options: > > > > > 1) Don't use the urgency slider > > > 2) Set the preference to by importance only > > > 3) Use the hierarchal priority method > > > > > That should suffice for anyone's needs; the program has > got so many > > > different ways to tweak the priority that it is silly. > And this this > > > program has too many options already and we can't bend the > > > algorithms to everyone's whims or the program would be > unfathomable > > > to new users. > > > > > The additive approach your suggesting really isn't' in > the cards for > > > the design.; that's what the weekly goal was suppose to do and it > > > doesn't work because it's really really hard to track it down the > > > tree as you recurse. lots of stack space and speed issues > and plenty > > > of places to make mistakes; and it confuses people... > really trust > > > me it does; the last time we went over this everyone had trouble > > > keeping the additive and multiplicative properties > straight during > > > the discussion and much arguing and crying occurred. > > > > > I go off to think about it some more. maybe something simple and > > > elegant will occur to me ... no promises. > > > > > On Jul 15, 3:22 pm, "Richard Collings" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bob > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed reply. I have a question and then an > > > > observation > > > > re: > > > > > > > The weekly goal was an option carried over from the > Hierarchal > > > > > Method; that just got grafted into the CSA. > > > > > > > It simply affects Urgency; and it's from before the urgency > > > > > slider was added. It was a way to make something urgent. > > > > > It's going to be very sensitive to outline depth. It was > > > > > designed to drive things deep in the outline to the top and > > > > > it's a very old feature. > > > > > > Does this mean that boosting the Urgency of a top level > task will > > > > also generate a depth related boost down the tree below > that task > > > > - ie that the urgency boost of the top level task is applied > > > > recursively down the tree (once to the top level task, twice to > > > > its children, three times to their children and so on). > > > > > > If so, then this just doesn't work for me. Taking my example > > > > again: > > > > > > > > Project A > > > > > > Task 1 > > > > > > Task 2 > > > > > > Task 3 > > > > > > Task 4 > > > > > > If I boost the urgency of A, I would like Tasks 1, 3 and 4 to > > > > all receive the same boost and not to suddenly find > that Tasks 3 > > > > and 4 appear above Task 1. I just cannot see the > logic of this > > > > - all I have said is that A is now more urgent. Why > should Tasks > > > > 3 and 4 then suddenly become more important than Task 1? > > > > > > If this recursive boosting is the case, then I would > make a strong > > > > plea for this behaviour to be made optional - ie: to > have 'Switch > > > > off recursive boosting' (or similar) which when ticked > will result > > > > in the boost just being applied once to the Task in > question and > > > > to all the children and their children, etc. > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > > > Richard- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
