<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Persistence Needs a Metric</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/</link>
	<description>Helping Creative People Create</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:34:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nawirkzsvp</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2860</link>
		<dc:creator>nawirkzsvp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2860</guid>
		<description>Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! hxcneozgmb</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! hxcneozgmb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blogging Dust Jacket Review: A Retrospective at DJR</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2323</link>
		<dc:creator>Blogging Dust Jacket Review: A Retrospective at DJR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2323</guid>
		<description>[...] And that leads to my second and final link o&#8217; the day, this time from LifeDev: Persistence Needs a Metric. The number one lesson from this entire process has been the number of details between concept and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And that leads to my second and final link o&#8217; the day, this time from LifeDev: Persistence Needs a Metric. The number one lesson from this entire process has been the number of details between concept and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Productive Firefox : Persistence, Productivity and Metrics</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2251</link>
		<dc:creator>Productive Firefox : Persistence, Productivity and Metrics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2251</guid>
		<description>[...] There is a really interesting post over at Glenn&#8217;s blog, http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] There is a really interesting post over at Glenn&#8217;s blog, <a href="http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/" rel="nofollow">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2250</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2250</guid>
		<description>Glen,

I&#039;m really interested in this angle to productivity. With GTDInbox, all we (currently) really concentrate on is the day to day details. Which; while great for actually getting things done, doesn&#039;t solve the &quot;headless chicken&quot; problem of knowing you&#039;ve got stuff to do, but no longer knowing _why_. I.e. no overarching &#039;goal&#039;.

In the case of GTD, I&#039;ve always maintained - along with Allen&#039;s thinking - that a &#039;Project&#039; is your goal. The view that you never achieve a goal (Project), you just do &#039;tasks&#039; that slowly lead you towards &#039;close-enough&#039; to completion. After all, what exactly is &#039;complete&#039;? To define that would be pointless, and immensely time consuming: a variation of the 80/20 rule (80% is &#039;good enough&#039;, 100% is &#039;complete&#039;).

But for me, there is no bridge between an &#039;action&#039;/&#039;task&#039; and a &#039;Goal&#039;. Suppose I had a goal to &quot;Double the value of my house&quot;. That would not immediately require &#039;actions&#039;. I would want to break it into Projects - &quot;Decorate Dining Room&quot;, &quot;Add Conservatory&quot;, etc.
What I&#039;m saying is, Projects need a high level to be grouped into, and that&#039;s where Desires/Goals come in.

For me, that&#039;s step one. The tricky part is that&#039;s just increased the maintenance load to be productive (3 layers is quite a lot of mental work). 

The next stage is then quantifying those actions. 
When you don&#039;t know what complete is, how can you tell how close you are?! You can know how much you&#039;ve achieved.

There are all sorts of questions once you have metrics,
* How much of the work I did was valuable (point: what can I cut out in future to achieve more?)
* How close am I to hitting my goals? (as a %)
* What stands between me and hitting my goals? (tasks left)
* What are the chances of hitting the goals before their deadline (how much to do vs. time left) -&gt; this relates to your quote, &#039;underestimate what you can do in a year&#039;.

Then there&#039;s your point, the &#039;motivation to keep going&#039;. I like that.
I like the idea you can look at an old Project, see how long it took, see what actions it was composed of, and use that as a predictor for future Projects.
I like the idea you can have the instant &#039;strike-off&#039; satisfaction of getting things done, anytime, just by looking at recent projects/tasks achieved.
I like the fact you can look and see &quot;well, it seems I have more of this year left than I thought I did!&quot;, and then do more. And on that, I like the fact a system like this would let you plan your year in such broad strokes. You know, define a &#039;goal&#039; and estimate time taken. Then, the second you start adding Actions (with their own mini time estimate), the Goal no longer has a time estimate, instead, the time is based on the Actions still to do (basically, build time predictions bottom up, except at the very beginning). On that note, I tend to make very crude time estimations to the nearest 30/60 minutes, to work out what I can achieve in any day.


Why is this relevant? One of the things that is &#039;itching&#039; us over at GTDInbox is the ultimate (which for me, is also the most simple) productivity system. I&#039;d love to engage some more discussion on this topic...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glen,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m really interested in this angle to productivity. With GTDInbox, all we (currently) really concentrate on is the day to day details. Which; while great for actually getting things done, doesn&#8217;t solve the &#8220;headless chicken&#8221; problem of knowing you&#8217;ve got stuff to do, but no longer knowing _why_. I.e. no overarching &#8216;goal&#8217;.</p>
<p>In the case of GTD, I&#8217;ve always maintained &#8211; along with Allen&#8217;s thinking &#8211; that a &#8216;Project&#8217; is your goal. The view that you never achieve a goal (Project), you just do &#8216;tasks&#8217; that slowly lead you towards &#8216;close-enough&#8217; to completion. After all, what exactly is &#8216;complete&#8217;? To define that would be pointless, and immensely time consuming: a variation of the 80/20 rule (80% is &#8216;good enough&#8217;, 100% is &#8216;complete&#8217;).</p>
<p>But for me, there is no bridge between an &#8216;action&#8217;/'task&#8217; and a &#8216;Goal&#8217;. Suppose I had a goal to &#8220;Double the value of my house&#8221;. That would not immediately require &#8216;actions&#8217;. I would want to break it into Projects &#8211; &#8220;Decorate Dining Room&#8221;, &#8220;Add Conservatory&#8221;, etc.<br />
What I&#8217;m saying is, Projects need a high level to be grouped into, and that&#8217;s where Desires/Goals come in.</p>
<p>For me, that&#8217;s step one. The tricky part is that&#8217;s just increased the maintenance load to be productive (3 layers is quite a lot of mental work). </p>
<p>The next stage is then quantifying those actions.<br />
When you don&#8217;t know what complete is, how can you tell how close you are?! You can know how much you&#8217;ve achieved.</p>
<p>There are all sorts of questions once you have metrics,<br />
* How much of the work I did was valuable (point: what can I cut out in future to achieve more?)<br />
* How close am I to hitting my goals? (as a %)<br />
* What stands between me and hitting my goals? (tasks left)<br />
* What are the chances of hitting the goals before their deadline (how much to do vs. time left) -&gt; this relates to your quote, &#8216;underestimate what you can do in a year&#8217;.</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s your point, the &#8216;motivation to keep going&#8217;. I like that.<br />
I like the idea you can look at an old Project, see how long it took, see what actions it was composed of, and use that as a predictor for future Projects.<br />
I like the idea you can have the instant &#8216;strike-off&#8217; satisfaction of getting things done, anytime, just by looking at recent projects/tasks achieved.<br />
I like the fact you can look and see &#8220;well, it seems I have more of this year left than I thought I did!&#8221;, and then do more. And on that, I like the fact a system like this would let you plan your year in such broad strokes. You know, define a &#8216;goal&#8217; and estimate time taken. Then, the second you start adding Actions (with their own mini time estimate), the Goal no longer has a time estimate, instead, the time is based on the Actions still to do (basically, build time predictions bottom up, except at the very beginning). On that note, I tend to make very crude time estimations to the nearest 30/60 minutes, to work out what I can achieve in any day.</p>
<p>Why is this relevant? One of the things that is &#8216;itching&#8217; us over at GTDInbox is the ultimate (which for me, is also the most simple) productivity system. I&#8217;d love to engage some more discussion on this topic&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: glen</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2243</link>
		<dc:creator>glen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2243</guid>
		<description>Well, for starters you could try JoesGoals.com.  It&#039;s really simple and straightforward.  It essentially allows you to track all of those things that you should be doing every day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, for starters you could try JoesGoals.com.  It&#8217;s really simple and straightforward.  It essentially allows you to track all of those things that you should be doing every day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett McKay</title>
		<link>http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/comment-page-1/#comment-2242</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett McKay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifedev.net/2007/03/persistence-needs-a-metric/#comment-2242</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been trying to figure out a good way to track my goals. Any suggestions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been trying to figure out a good way to track my goals. Any suggestions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.401 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-22 02:57:24 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
