 |
Covey's quadrants vs. GTD workflow model
I attended a 7-habits workshop and have trouble putting together Covey’s quadrant of important/urgent stuff with David Allen’s workflow process.
I agree with Covey’s thought of only considering those things that are in quadrants I and II. At the same time, I like the practical approach offered by GTD on processing items (workflow).
Can someone please tell me where in GTD’s workflow process can I fit Covey’s quadrant for deciding on items?
Thanks.
Give me some specific examples of priorities you are struggling with on a typical day.
My priority items are generally time sensitive and put into various date folders for action in my tickler file which I work as those dates arrive (GTD).
If I find myself procrastinating on any assignment and advancing it on a daily basis in the tickler file then I will simply schedule it for a specific time and date on my "hardscape" calendar to make sure it gets done at that time (Taylor, Morgenstern, Covey).
Hope this helps some,
Danny Hardesty
www.dannyhardesty.com
Here would be an example of how I apply the quadrants: I have two Errands lists - one that needs to be done (groceries, bank, etc.) and one with things that can be done when I have the time, energy, or are nearby a store that carries the item I'm looking for. It works really well for me. When I'm in town, I plan my trip around the first list and then if I have the time/energy and am on the right side of town, I complete items on my second list.
I use the same system for my other contexts as well. I know he says just to have one list, but I get overwhelmed when I have too many items on my list. Breaking it down this way keeps my lists to a managable length and makes it easier for me to decide what to do next. I don't necessarily require all things on the first list to be completed before I work on the second. I heard DA say once that if you have 8 things to do, you haven't much choice. But if you have 80 things to do and you decide to drink a beer instead of doing one of those things, it's going to be a damn good beer. I allow myself the freedom to move from list to list because I know I am making informed choices about what I am doing.
The problem I always had with Covey was that "only do tasks in quadrants I and II" sounds great in theory, but is pretty difficult to do in practice. Where do tasks like "do laundry" or "get car serviced" fit?
In my own GTD approach, I mostly apply Covey at the upper levels: thinking about long term goals and tying those to short-term action.
Katherine
Under the Covey Model, "Get Car serviced" and "Do Laundry" would clearly be Quad II activities because they are needed maintenance. Covey talks about attaining a P/PC Balance. P= Performance and PC=Performance Capability.
If I want my car to "perform", I need to maintain it's "Performance Capability" through regular checkups.
If I want my clothes to last, I need to take care of them through regular cleaning.
Same holds true for my health, money, relationships etc. Make regular "investments" in my physical health, financial portfolio, close relationships etc, and they will continue to "perform" for me.
Craig
I agree! I think that it's actually pretty easy to work the two approaches in tandem. Let's use Quadrant IV for example... I think that across the board, you can eliminate that quadrant entirely w/o causing conflict between "workflow" and Covey. Items like surfing the net, watching TV, etc. (although I agree with DA when he says that "Doing nothing" is sometimes the best thing to do given your energy levels, etc.) can be pretty much eliminated and add to your productivity levels.Originally Posted by ckennedy
Even items in Quadrant III (Urgent, but not important) can be reduced or eliminated... and I think that DA's workflow process can actually help you sort those items out. If something lands in your inbox, you can determine what quadrant it belongs in pretty quickly and dispatch it through the workflow process (junk mail, toss it.... etc.).
I think that the workflow diagram keeps you mostly focused on Quadrants I and II by default. For example, let's use DA's famous "tires" scenario. You either need tires or you don't. Off the bat, it starts out as a Quadrant II issue. What distinguishes "tires" between I and II is how badly you need them. When "tires" first pops onto your radar, chances are you don't need to replace them right away (urgent), however, it's still important that you do so because if you don't, you're going to be in trouble when you get a blowout.
So, right away "replace tires" goes on your project list, and some NA related to it (call garage for prices, get number for garage from Fred, etc.) goes on the appropriate list. If you put that NA off long enough, at some point this is going to cross over into Quadrant I (urgent AND important), because now you're risking the tire blowing out.
Now, for Quadrants III and IV, something like "aimlessly surf the net" (Quad IV) will never get onto your NA list because there is no real "next action" associated with it. If there is an "next action" associated with it, by default then the action is related to some outcome that you're trying to attain and therefore it will be either a Quad I or II NA.
I know I rambled a bit, but does the above make sense?
No matter what system they're using, I doubt many people put "aimlessly surf the net" on their action list. Yet plenty of people, regardless of their organizing system, spend plenty of time aimlessly surfing.
Katherine
Fitting in Covey Quadrants (long)
Covey's quadrant approach does not work for me when applied to next actions. When Agendus (a Palm and Windows program) added the ability to categorize tasks in quadrants (with a very cool and easy interface), I couldn't resist playing with it. My next actions were all in contexts, of course, but I also categorized them by quadrant. Guess what? There wasn't much in QIV (not urgent and not important). There was some stuff in QIII (urgent but not important), but I still had to do it, because it was important to somebody else and it was my responsibility. Most stuff was QII with a few QI items. I have done this exercise of assigning quadrants a few times, and it has never seemed helpful at the level of next actions.
Let me give you an example: yesterday a graduate student stopped by my office. He was checking on the status of his petition to my department's Graduate Studies Committee, which I chair. For me, the status of his petition is neither urgent (a decision has to be made in, say, the next three weeks) nor important (to me), and thus QIV. Of course, it is very important to him, and my responsibility (20K). The next action is to circulate the petition to the other faculty on the committee. The reason I have not dealt with it yet is that I received the petition shortly before I had surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon (QI), and have only been back at my office for the last three days. I suppose I could wait a few weeks until QIV became QIII and decide I had to do it. Or I could decide it is QI or QII because my administrative responsibilities are as important as my research and teaching. What did I do? I put the petition on my project list with a reminder that it had some time sensitivity, and put the next action (circulate petition) on my @work list. Once I do that, I will put a next action on my @waiting-for list. I should have done all this when I was unable to complete the task of circulating the petition when I first received it, but I left it half-done and returned it to my in-box. This was less than ideal, but then again, so is rupturing your Achilles tendon.
Is the quadrant analysis useless? I don't think so. If applied at the GTD levels of 10K (projects), 20K (Focus Areas), and perhaps higher, it can help liberate us from the useless burdens we place on ourselves and on others, and to focus on "what matters most." But I think the quadrant approach is just one tool in top-down review.
A related example: suppose I am thinking about stepping down as chair of the gradate studies committee, thus changing a focus area/area of responsibility/20K/role over the course of a year or two (30K). In order to do that, and feel good about it, I need to resolve some projects which are important (QI or QII), but can hand over more routine projects, which could perhaps be classified as QIII or even QIV, but do have to be done. So the Covey matrix is a bit helpful, but honestly what's more important is the
progression
30K (hand over responsibilities)
-> 20K (focus area to be eliminated)
---> 10K (projects to be completed before hand-off)
----->0K (next actions on projects)
Having a beer probably isn't on the list either, but DA talks about chosing to do one of your items that you need to do or having a beer - you're making an informed choice so if you choose to have the beer, it'll be a "damn good one." You aren't limited solely to "doing things on the list."
I think DA has you track the I and II items so that you know what they are and can do them. You can take care of important things before they come urgent because you know what they are. Thus you end up with fewer urgent and important items.
That was my point, exactly. I think that the original question was "Can someone please tell me where in GTD’s workflow process can I fit Covey’s quadrant for deciding on items?"
I was trying to point out that the GTD "workflow" process (i.e. the diagram) naturally places items within Covey's quadrants, inherently in Quadrants I and II.
Granted, an item like "aimlessly surf the web" will never pass through the workfolw diagram and as such it doesn't put the workflow diagram and Covey's Quadrants at odds.
Last edited by jkgrossi; 10-01-2005 at 09:32 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote