Are we agreeing, disagreeing, or talking about different things?
I would contend that "capability" is really a constant anyway (Capability = 1). While I can create the illusion of working on more than one thing at a time (by task switching), at any given moment I can only be focused on 1 thing. Given an effort cost associated with switching tasks, the more I switch, the more effort I waste.
I think we're agreeing in differently nuanced ways.
I never talk about individual capability because a team is a system. But we'll assume one person to make the math easier.
I think capability is always changing, and the best approximation you have of it is the velocity you last experienced in a similarly-sized period, provided you haven't done anything to increase your capability or reduce waste in the meantime. That's messy for math purposes. Let's assume a constant (but beware! That is the fixed mindset, and it is self-fulfilling).
If you have capacity of 1 and one task then 1/1 = 1 and it's perfect. Capacity of 1 and 5 tasks = 0.2 effort to apply to each task (assuming "fairly" dividing time) and much less gets done. But that's OPTIMISTIC because there is also a task-switching penalty. If my capacity is 2, and I have tasks requiring an effort of 1, then I'm idle for 1/2 my time (not that I won't find good ways to fill the time).
But then there are tasks that need more than one brain. Multi-brain tasks require a bunch more blog posts, and mess with the math, so I'll ignore those for now.
Well, leave it at the crucial agreement: "do one thing at a time, and do it with all your heart".
+Jeff Cave I recently found out about the Ziegarnik effect.
Unfinished work holds real estate in your head. Freeing that memory is part of the relief we feel when we have an accomplishment. Think about what that means for thin slicing and multitasking.
I had never heard of the Ziegarnik effect before. Thank-you.
While unfinished work is a problem for which the only solution is finishing. Problems you would like to solve in the future are also affected by this. This for me is managed by an economic principle (the name of which I have forgotten), combined with the backlog. By putting the item in the backlog, we can let go of the real-estate consumed in our head.
Alternately, if an action is determined to be less valuable than the cost of the action to implement it, then it is harmful to take that action. Again, I can let go of the idea because it is not an action I find desireable anymore.
Tasks can exist in two states: in the backlog, or undesirable. Neither state is taking up resources in my head.
Of course I say that after trying to remember for the last week to respond to this. Do as I say, not as I do.
I suspect (without evidence, so maybe "I fancy") that when something is on a list, there is still some amount of will power either holding onto it or holding a token to remind you that you did it, but it's far short of the Z effect. I think it's more like "swap" than "active memory." But I notice that I DO forget things on lists, but I sometimes remember that there is a list to check. :-)
+Jeff Cave I have since learned of the Ziergarnik effect, which hypothesizes that unfinished tasks hold real estate in your head, like a cache. By holding context, it is able to more quickly re-orient to return to the task. When you complete a task, the theory goes, you reclaim the memory.
Interesting? If so, then merely HAVING three or four thinking tasks is a detriment to thinking clearly about any of them.
I have experiences that resonate, but I have to dig a little deeper to see whether this has been validated, or explained by an alternative and stronger theory.
+Tim Ottinger Since you first mentioned the Ziergarnik effect, I have done a fair amount of skimming (articles as recent as the late 90s). Directly related to what we are discussing.
applied effort per task = capability / tasks
That's upsetting. If I can do three, and I have two, I get less done. If I can do three and I have four, I get less done.
That is a simple formula but it really makes a difference in your thinking.
I would contend that "capability" is really a constant anyway (Capability = 1). While I can create the illusion of working on more than one thing at a time (by task switching), at any given moment I can only be focused on 1 thing. Given an effort cost associated with switching tasks, the more I switch, the more effort I waste.
I'm talking about maximizing "focused effort".
I never talk about individual capability because a team is a system. But we'll assume one person to make the math easier.
I think capability is always changing, and the best approximation you have of it is the velocity you last experienced in a similarly-sized period, provided you haven't done anything to increase your capability or reduce waste in the meantime. That's messy for math purposes. Let's assume a constant (but beware! That is the fixed mindset, and it is self-fulfilling).
If you have capacity of 1 and one task then 1/1 = 1 and it's perfect. Capacity of 1 and 5 tasks = 0.2 effort to apply to each task (assuming "fairly" dividing time) and much less gets done. But that's OPTIMISTIC because there is also a task-switching penalty. If my capacity is 2, and I have tasks requiring an effort of 1, then I'm idle for 1/2 my time (not that I won't find good ways to fill the time).
But then there are tasks that need more than one brain. Multi-brain tasks require a bunch more blog posts, and mess with the math, so I'll ignore those for now.
Well, leave it at the crucial agreement: "do one thing at a time, and do it with all your heart".
Unfinished work holds real estate in your head. Freeing that memory is part of the relief we feel when we have an accomplishment. Think about what that means for thin slicing and multitasking.
While unfinished work is a problem for which the only solution is finishing. Problems you would like to solve in the future are also affected by this. This for me is managed by an economic principle (the name of which I have forgotten), combined with the backlog. By putting the item in the backlog, we can let go of the real-estate consumed in our head.
Alternately, if an action is determined to be less valuable than the cost of the action to implement it, then it is harmful to take that action. Again, I can let go of the idea because it is not an action I find desireable anymore.
Tasks can exist in two states: in the backlog, or undesirable. Neither state is taking up resources in my head.
Of course I say that after trying to remember for the last week to respond to this. Do as I say, not as I do.
I take intuition, from experts, seriously.
I have since learned of the Ziergarnik effect, which hypothesizes that unfinished tasks hold real estate in your head, like a cache. By holding context, it is able to more quickly re-orient to return to the task. When you complete a task, the theory goes, you reclaim the memory.
Interesting? If so, then merely HAVING three or four thinking tasks is a detriment to thinking clearly about any of them.
I have experiences that resonate, but I have to dig a little deeper to see whether this has been validated, or explained by an alternative and stronger theory.