> I don't really use the urgency slider but here's how I use the > importance slider for CSA... > A neutral value (MID-POINT) means that task MUST to be done in order > to complete its parent. Tasks that are not essential get scored either > one or two notches below. For the remainder, as all these must be done > in order to complete the parent, in theory they are all equally > important for that parent task. However, those tasks that have a > positive impact on other tasks/goals/aims beyond the parent get scored > a notch or two higher, depending on how significant this impact might > be. Eg if I'm writing a few functions for a programme but one of them > could be really useful elsewhere, then I give it above neutral > importance. I find that if I use this method, it gives me a reaonably > consistent scoring logic for importance across tasks. Does this fit > with your view of how scoring should be used with CSA?
Sorry I missed this question.; that's close but you should only rank tasks IN RESPECT to their immediate parent that's what the algorithm expects. It's suppose to relieve you of the burden of thinking about EVERY task in a GLOBAL context. If a Project contains items that are important to other projects; i would make that project itself more important. rather than the tasks within it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
