Bob, What's your take on being able to do all this in an iphone sized processor and screen? Do you think its possible?
On 16 July, 04:01, ratz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
