Posts Tagged ‘new system’

Eating the dog food

Posted in diary on January 2nd, 2009 by ben – Be the first to comment

I reached a milestone today with my GTD project: it became usable enough that I can use it to track what I’m working on for its development.  In programmer’s parlance, that’s eating my own dogfood.  Granted, the food tastes pretty bland and requires extra chewing, but it’s edible.

A lot of personal projects are born out of the desire to “scratch an itch,” and this is no exception.  I’ll probably write more in the future about other itches, but for now, I’ll talk a bit about how this scratches my multitasking itch.

I am a vicious multitasker.  Some folks call it a blessing, others a curse.  I believe it’s driven by my desire to constantly be doing something that I will rarely allow myself to sit and be idle if my current task is waiting on something.  Things like long compiles, people typing slowly into an instant messaging window, or waiting for the microwave to heat my coffee will all cause me to take a tangent to something “more productive.”

That said, I acknowledge:

  1. There’s no such thing as multitasking.  Just really fast switching of attention.
  2. Going off on a tangent to fill an idle time slice often gives that tangent more time than it deserves.  Things like scanning the news headlines turns into reading at least 1 long article.
  3. Returning to a task takes a non-zero amount of time to re-acclimate to the details.  The longer you’re away from the task, the longer it takes to re-acclimate.

My “itches” around this issue fall into a few areas

  1. Explicit task focus.  The system should try to keep attention on the current task, and not allow the focus to be lost with a simple alt-tab to another app
  2. Minimize distractions.  When working on a task, keep unrelated things out of sight.  This is related to what I was talking about the other day, about data vs. task.  Most systems try to put as much data on the screen at a time to make it easier to move between items.  But that’s because they don’t know what your current task actually is.
  3. Accommodate interruptions.  When interruptions occur, explicitly acknowledge them, and try to help save the state of the task that is getting interrupted.  

The first thing this system does is exert the task focus.  I requires you to pick a piece of work, and you can get out of that work with either a “done”, “put away,” or an “interruption.”  Every screen reminds you of what you said you’d do.

It’s been a fun week of vacation.  As I told my co-workers, it’s not like I wasn’t going to be in front of a computer on my vacation, it’s just I’d be in front of a different computer.  I’ve also been using this as a chance to explore Grails, and I’m pretty impressed.

Task-focused GTD systems

Posted in opinion on December 30th, 2008 by ben – 3 Comments

Abstract: A primary disconnect of GTD systems is that they are more interested in the data than the actions.  

As an analogy, let’s pretend you are are tasked with starting a new rocking chair manufacturing company. Would you rather have

  1. A pre-designed assembly line that had all the jigs and supplies for the steps involved in building your product, or
  2. Norm Abrams-style workshop (à la New Yankee Workshop) where you have every imaginable high-end tool needed to craft anything out of wood?
I’m hoping you’d choose #1 (since the question wasn’t whether you aspire to be a craftsman).  The key here is that choice #1 is a task-oriented solution, and #2 is focused on the materials and tools.
GTD focuses on the “next action,” driving you toward tasks that you can process through with less mental baggage than abstract project goals.  It is this decomposition of projects into the next actionable tasks that causes so many “ah hah” moments for new GTD disciples.  In hindsight, it’s obvious, but it’s a fundamental shift for most folks.
The trouble is that most GTD systems are based on the data you use to perform your next actions, rather than the actions themselves.  For instance, Microsoft Outlook has email, calendaring, todo items, notes, etc. – all the tools you’d need for a good GTD implementation.  But it doesn’t help you turn that new request from your boss in your inbox into a todo item that’s due by Friday.   There’s no easy way to take a message you just sent and create a tickler for following up 3 days from now.  I could go on…
I want a system that focuses on what to do with the data, rather than giving me arbitrary ways to organize it.  I want an assembly line that I walk up to in the morning and that enables me to crank through whatever work is on my plate and whatever comes at me.  I don’t need lots of customization of views and fields, as long as I can trust that the system isn’t going to let open loops get stale.
In order to make a new system that has a chance of success, it needs to build on a mental model that blends with what new users bring to the app.  What are other analogies for this action vs. data struggle? What other apps are more focused on the action than the data?
Feedback is welcome,
-benJ

Treating GTD links as first-class

Posted in opinion on November 29th, 2008 by ben – Be the first to comment

I’ve been thinking a lot about a wiki-like system to facilitate the habits of GTD.  It’s a wiki in the sense that everything is an item, and there is no explicit hierarchy.  There are no folders, and no binary parent/child relationships between projects and tasks.

But its not enough to depend on a simple wiki, since wikis don’t treat links as first-class objects.  Wikis automatically link outward from the item to other items referenced in the context, and if they’re good, they can also report which items are linking to items.

If a link were a first-class object, it would have other attributes, such as

 

  • Strength – think of the links that connect you to your friends in Facebook – some friendships are stronger than others, with the strongest being your spouse, weakening down to the point of the folks you added just to play Mob Wars
  • Directionality – if you’re using links to establish task sequencing, obviously one of the items is a prerequisite to the other
  • Why – the “link type”, possibly including
    • blocked by – for “waiting for” items, could be blocked by another person or task
    • revision of – when a newer item overrides the content of a previous item
    • reference – when two things are related just because they are part of the same project
    • source – where did the item come from
    • member of – for mimicking parent/child relationships

 

I have a few questions:

 

  1. What is the smallest set of link types that can suffice to map all the items used for system that captures all your GTD activity?
  2. Do links have “completeness” ? Can a link itself be marked as finished?  Or is it the item that is marked as finished?  (Think about when a task is delegated to someone.)
  3. Do links have age?  Like twine left in the rain, do links fade over time?