Time Management Revisited
February 13th, 2010
Dr. Charles Hobbs, the time management guru of the 70’s, was quite clear that “prioritization” of tasks was a process. He advocated a daily review of things to be done - anticipating the context of the next 24 hours. “What should I work on today?’
Perhaps a copy of a copy isn’t a sharp as the original. After Dr. Hobbs ideas were popularized by Franklin Planner, and then Franklin-Covey enthusiasts - the notions of “priority” and “prioritizing” took a different direction in their popular usage. Apparently, many folks began to think of priorities as intrinsic properties of action items, and this created a conflict.
Contrast this: “Working out tomorrow morning is my top priority.” (The Dr. Hobbs “daily prioritization” approach) with: “Working Out is my top priority.” Do you see the difference?
The first and proper approach is the product of a frequent process of assessment immediately before opportunity for action. The second is an attempt to assign a priority to an action as an intrinsic characteristic of that action. This essentially elevates that action to the essence of virtue, regardless of time and situation. This second approach inevitably leads to daily conflicts between what I “ought to” be doing, and what I -must do- today.
Apparently, a lot of folks have made this mistake, because the web is buzzing with a “new” approach to time management called “Getting Things Done”. (Here is an Amazon book link to the author, David Allen.) Open Source developers have developed an an Android app called “Shuffle” and a web based app called “Tracks” that implement one important concept from the GTD portfolio.
You are no doubt familiar with the basic task list. Evey Desktop email & calendar program seems to have them. There is a field to describe the task, enter a note, a due date, and (sometimes) a “task becomes active after…” date. Tracks and Shuffle builds on this common structure.
Instead of adding a priority field (leading some down the wrong path), Tracks and Shuffle require that every task be placed in a “context”; a “when” or “where” describing the situation that action is appropriate. People have used “When I am Fresh”, “When I Am Tired”, “Weekend”, “Errand Day”, “When I See Jim”, and so on. This helps to automate prioritization. The software creates short, relevant, and “dynamic” priority lists appropriate to the context.
Both Track and Shuffle support tagging tasks with Project Name, to organize tasks that cumulate in an an objective or sustain a capability. This creates a task matrix and you can shift perspectives with a mouse click. You can view tasks by project, or tasks by context.
There is much more to the GTD methodology, and other programs have attempted to automate other aspects of David Allen’s materials. However, I am a fan of the “small sharp & simple tool” approach to automation. Shuffle and Tracks both have very easy learning curves. You use these tools without a lot of preparation, and without a lot of system housekeeping. Both have made the entry of new tasks a simple and fast process with a minimum of extra returns, tabs and clicks to get the task into the system.
iPod users should search for GTD, and may want to settle on an app that “syncs” tasks, contexts and projects with Tracks, as Shuffle does. Visit the Tracks developer site, and in the support documentation you will find free Tracks hosting services from small companies that hope to be the next “Twitter”. (Be cautious about storing passwords and other sensitive information in these public systems.)
If you are a small business,you may want to look into setting up a TRACKS server for your employees. Just remember, these are tools for personal task management. They do not replace other collaboration tools such as Google Apps, Zimbra, Drupal, Sharepoint, etc. A new tool to organize and manage one’s personal To-Dos is often the jump start people need to follow through on those new year resolutions!
Rational Team-Building
December 30th, 2008
“Re-organization” and “teams” are the perennials in the Management improvement garden. Popping their heads up every weak financial quarter, hope springs eternal for these two old favorites. While these venerable strategies do occasionally work to rejuvenate an organization, it isn’t magic; and understanding that fact is the key to more than an occasional success.
With teams, the intent is to bring people together and charge them with a common purpose in the hope that they will “somehow” be more productive than individuals. For true believers, the “somehow” is guaranteed by faith and philosophy, but there are those of us who have seen teams perform worse than the proverbial “one good engineer”.
Teams can be rationally formed, or they can be mal-formed. They can be too big, be organized badly, or composed of the “wrong” people. Just as competent individuals are the building blocks of successful teams, properly formed teams are the building blocks of larger organizational structures. (In this strict use of the word, 30 people cannot form a “team”.)
In this article, we will focus on the issue of staffing a team. In another time and place we can discuss why teams need to be small (No more than six individuals); and why the team leader is expected to be a working member of the team and is not the same as a supervisor, manager or coach. (A supervisor may be responsible for 2-4 teams.)
Teams have intrinsic inefficiencies. Teams members need to communicate and to closely coordinate their actions. (Here is one reason to keep teams small!) As a consequence, “team communication” and “team meetings” are often considered “boring”, “work-time consuming” and “a necessary evil”. Teams can still out-produce despite this innate disadvantage; if they are formed in such a way as to exploit one of several established principles of productivity.
1. “Division of Labor” It has been known for generations that cooperating specialists can be more productive than generalists, -if- there is sufficient work to keep the specialty occupied. If there is not sufficient work, then the specialty work is absorbed into the closest skill match. You can take advantage of this principle by staffing a team with different backgrounds and skills. A team with a diversity of skills can maximize productivity if there is sufficient work to justify each specialty.
2. “Many hands make light work” There are many jobs that are unpleasant, tedious, and boring. Nevertheless, they must be done. A single good trooper who is assigned to “swamp draining” duties may intellectually appreciate that every job is important, but a long dreary task can sap the morale and productivity of the best. This kind of assignment generally calls for similar backgrounds and skills. A friendly peer is the best kind of team member to have by one’s side when there is an undesirable assignment to be slogged through.
3. “Perspectives Generate Ideas” Once again, here is a reason to staff a team with individuals selected for their different backgrounds and skills. There are times when we are “idea poor” and are looking for a fresh approach to a market, to a new product, or for a problem solution. Teams of “like mind” are likely to hash over the same old talking points and repeatedly converge on the same solution. Worse, as a result they may deem their conclusion “the best alternative” because they do not have the benefit of a radically different perspective.
4. “Safety in Numbers” A Team can be more productive than individuals, if teams are formed as a “risk reduction” strategy. Think of this as adding a “Co-pilot” or a “spotter” in any task where a single misstep, or sudden loss of a key individual can be catastrophic. Similar backgrounds and skills would be characteristic of this kind of team. Here the advantage is intangible, and a manager would need a good quantitative understanding of “risk” in order to fully appreciate with is “bought” by adding redundant team members.
What is the conclusion? Don’t expect a team to be “somehow” more effective or motivated than the enthusiastic and committed individual. Form teams for a reason. Have an idea as to how a team might be more productive in a given situation. Then, staff the team accordingly, with individuals selected for either their common, or complementary abilities. If you can’t make a case for a team, then don’t forget the effectiveness of “one good engineer”.
Urgency, Procrastination & Risk
December 30th, 2008
“Look Mom! I un-peeled all of the bananas for you!” This was a classic Dennis the Menace cartoon. Dennis was standing on a chair and the countertop was covered in banana peels. Dennis’ mom was standing with her hands to her face in dismay.
Urgency can be manipulated, accelerated, manufactured. Like bananas, a lot of things keep for a relatively long time unopened and unpeeled. When the wrapper comes off ahead of time, one must act quickly or suffer loss.
Time is the opportunity for action, specifically it is the opportunity to think and choose one’s best action. Dennis’ mom no longer has time on her side. In fact, the opposite is true. She has only minutes to decide how to best use several days worth of bananas.
In the name of motivation, ‘Banana Peelers’ may often use manufactured urgency in a manipulative manner. They contrive an “act or lose” situation to get people to do what they want, when they want it. When used judiciously, this can be an effective project management tool. However, for some people this is a ‘preferred behavior’ and their habitual attempts to stampede action will provoke resentment and rebelling behavior – opposite results!
Remember, if every task is urgent, ASAP (as soon as possible), or ‘top priority’, then the strategy of prioritization collapses. One does not achieve to achieve focus and control over effectiveness.
The opposite of the ‘banana peeler’ is the procrastinator. Habitual procrastinators will buy bananas, put off peeling them, and then throw them away once they are rotten. All decisions pertaining to their best use are thereby avoided.
If a person is chronically indecisive, they will also be a procrastinator. On the other hand, procrastination can also be effective if used judiciously. While some tasks are prerequisite or are ASAP so that we will know their outcome as quickly as possible; other tasks are legitimately postponed ALAP (as late as possible), and for any number of reasons. By policy, I never perform any kind of irreversible computer housekeeping late in the day or when I am tired. I always postpone that kind of maintenance to a time where I am sure to be clear headed and less prone to mistakes.
Our capacity to evaluate, choose and act is finite. While we value attention to detail, at any point in time there may be more issues in play than our finite capacities can process. Since some issues are vital, we may procrastinate on other items and accept the risk that matters postponed may not work out to our desires.
Contextual knowledge of the project and the work is the key. Is the exact shade of a red paint vital (e.g. a brand recognition issue) or is it a matter where any variant is acceptable.
‘Banana Peeling’ and Procrastination are the complementary vices of habitually manufacturing urgency, and indefinitely postponing decisions. An excessive preferred behavior cannot be simply dismissed as a ‘management style’, but the judicious use of these two approaches is a valuable tool in the mitigation of risk.