Blog

Posted on

Why IT Professionals Need to Pay Attention to Time Management

A recent series of 2 articles by Peter Denning in the Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery included many ideas covered by us here at 2Time Labs.

He starts off in Part 1 by saying that many computing professionals have a great challenge with time management and shares their “laments about information overload, about a relentlessly increasing rate of input from Internet and other sources, and about feelings of overwhelm, data drowning, inadequacy and even victimization.”

He argues that we have demanded increased data from our surroundings, but have become no better at using it to make decisions.

In a move familiar with time management fans, he defines “commitment management” as the starting point in a way that’s similar to the definition of “time demand management” here at 2Time Labs.

He goes on to talk about practices that are needed:
1. How to track commitments to their completion.
2. How to choose what commitments to make or decline.
3. How to organize the conversations that lead to the completion of commitments.
4. How to manageme mood and capacity.

From his point of view, the most recent time management books focus on the first practice, but not on the last three.

Some books, like those written by Stephen Covey, talk about the need to make commitments based on one’s personal mission statement. While this works to some degree, I believe that this thinking scratches the surface of what needs to be done by busy professionals who simply won’t pull out a card with a written statement every time they need to make a decision. (In general, Covey’s ideas badly need someone to show people how to convert them into credible, daily action.)

Then, his article takes an interesting tack, as he brings in the Conversations for Action thinking pioneered by Weinograd and Flores in their book, “Understanding Computers and Cognition.” While their ideas are beyond the scope of this article, they are powerful and I have been using them since the mid-1990’s in my daily life and in the odd seminar.

They define commitments as promises that are created between people in conversation – a particular kind of dialog. They are created only after the right context/relationship has been established and an exploratory, visionary conversation has been conducted. The author rightly argues that these activities take time, and are themselves commitments to be managed.

Here at 2Time Labs I define “time demands” a bit differently – to include commitments that aren’t necessarily made to other people, but are made only to oneself. An example is “the need to spend time alone to prepare for a conversation for action.” Also, I would go a step further and assert that all commitments to other people begin in the same place – with a private commitment. Only then can a public request or promise be made.

In his followup paper written with Ritu Raj, the author goes on to define the main problem behind information overload. It’s not the the spam and informational messages that we should be concerned with, but email messages that have commitments / time demands embedded in them, in the form of requests and promises. These are the nuggets of gold that require our greatest attention.

In particular, Dennings singles out the time demands that make up coordination loops – those cycles of promises and requests that Flores and Weinograd explain in their book. Managing these loops is of utmost importance, as they are the essential elements of communication in team environments that drive result production. There are few email programs that are designed to manage these cycles, and none of them are widely used. Most of us are stuck having to imagine these loops, and manage them using our memory.

This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

In complex team environments, the author reminds us that setting up a single conference call is an activity that can take dozens of emails. Completing subtasks that involve multiple team members can take even more. New tools are needed to manage coordination loops, and they need to exist inside our email and time management programs. Some do exist, as the author notes, but apparently they aren’t very well known or widely implemented.

One system that I have trialed that takes a step in this direction is called Promisystem, a web app that provides a solid method for managing promises. Unfortunately, it lacks Outlook, Lotus Notes or Apple Mail integration. <Only after writing this article I did I discover OrchestratorMail, created by by Raj’s company.>

The author makes an interesting point in passing: “The conclusion is that, for most of us, most of our time management is really not ‘personal’.”

I take this to mean that when you accept a role in a project team, you are essentially agreeing to undertake certain speech acts (a la John Searle) and to play a specific part in pre-designated commitment loops. The requirements of this role don’t depend on you – your time management skill, your personality, your choices – the individual, but are defined by the team and the requirements of the project.

Obviously, some are more highly skilled than others in this respect, a fact that Dennings alludes to in his claim that people need to be aware of their capacity to undertake commitments. Many people are not aware, nor are they interested in understanding it until they have an acute problem and start failing. At that point, a few do take the course that I advocate here at 2Time Labs – to implement an upgrade to their existing habits, practies and rituals.

Most engage in some combination of complaining about needing an extra hour in the day, or attempts to reduce time demands. Some take extreme action and quit their teams and/or their jobs.

Project managers need to be careful who they appoint to certain roles in terms of their ability to manage time demands and commitment loops. In my training, I give people tools to assess their personal time management skills, awarding them a White, Yellow, Orange or Green Belt depending on their personal assessment.

A team of White Belts (the lowest skill level) would operate very differently from a team of Green Belts. Most project maangers end up with a blend, and can be helped with a certain knowledge of what skill levels potential team members possess before they are added to the team.

It’s a great series of articles, and Part 1 is available here: http://denninginstitute.com/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmMar11.pdf (Thanks Tom M. for the link.)

Part 2 is available here – ttp://www.cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmSep11.pdf

Denning, P., Communications of the ACM 543. (Mar 2011) DOI: 10.1145/1897852.1897865
Denning, P., Raj, R. Communications of the ACM 549. (Sep 2011) DOI: 10.1145/1995376.1995388
Winograd, T., and Flores, F. Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA, 1987.

 

Posted on

A “Heckuva” Month – a post Sandy update

October was a “heckuva” month.

Hurricane Sandy made its first landfall here in Jamaica, before lashing out at Cuba, Haiti, The Bahamas and the north-eastern United States.

Everything came to a screeching halt as we lost Internet, water, power and telephone service (but not mobile service.) Fortunately, our home suffered minimal damage and despite a few leaks and scary gusts of wind we made it through unscathed. Many others lost a great deal more, and thankfully only one or two lives were lost here in Jamaica.

When I could muster up enough power to charge my laptop, I was able to make singificant progress on “The Book.” What started as a rather disjoint story at the end of September is now a complete and fairly coherent tale of one professional’s journey from time management 1.0 to 2.0. Without the help of a book or a class, Bill Crossley, the protagonist, is able to overcome his own lack of productivity and the subsequent threat of being fired to craft a new approach to time management that saves his team, and his life, from ruin.

It’s been a steep learning curve for me as the author of my first novel, in the form of a business fable. Humbling, even. I am much more comfortable writing in abstract terms, working with concepts and ideas. The creative process used to write a good piece of fiction is something that I will never, ever take for granted.

When will it be published?

Well, I’m looking at a January launch date – as soon as I can find an editor who feels comfortable with this curious blend of fiction and non-fiction that makes up this particular genre. Other peopular books that follow this method of teaching new ideas include “The Goal” by Eli Goldratt, “Who Moved My Cheese” and “The One Minute Manager” by Ken Blanchard. Patrick Lencioni has also completed quite a few books in this genre, including one on being a management consultant that is simply wonderful.

Last thing: my forays into e-Learning in the past year have burnished my commitment to offer online training on a 24-7 basis, rather than the once-in-a-while approach I have taken up until now. Eventually, I’ll be moving to a new video-driven training platform that will replace the current platform by this time next year.

So – stay tuned. There are a few surprises coming up that you might like that I won’t mention yet, including a special offer to take my flgaship online training – MyTimeDedesign 1.1.Plus+

 

 

Posted on

Is Time Management Training a Waste of Time?

This is a guest post by Peter Green of the Better Time Management blog. It’s a great resource, and he’s a terrific thinker who deserves our gratitude for the research he’s done.

Introduction
A trawl of the research on the effectiveness of time management training finds a dearth of empirical evidence. Research that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. On the other hand, research I co-authored with Denise Skinner published in 2005 based on 19 courses found an overall 20% median improvement in time management skills. To see why the findings of our research contrast with earlier studies, I believe we need to look at training content and research methods.

Training Content
Covey and colleagues have usefully categorised four levels of time management training. They conclude that earlier approaches with their emphasis on efficiency and organisation have failed to help people match what they consider to be important with how they actually spend their time. They describe a fourth generation of time management which includes the best features of previous thinking but also focuses on helping people spend more time on what is really important at both work and home. So if some of the earlier research was based on ‘old school’ time management training, this could have contributed to their mainly negative conclusions. The training in our courses on the other hand was based on the first edition of my book Managing Time: Loving Every Minute and fits Covey’s description of ‘fourth generation’ content.

Research Methods
Major studies published between 1982 and 1996 raise questions on sample size, evaluation, measurement tools and data collection. This helped to shape the design of our own project.
For instance on sample size, some studies were as low as single figures and some purely involved students who arguably are not representative of typical time management training attendees. By contrast ours covered 134 respondents or 53% of people who attended the 19 courses, which were for ten organisations plus others represented on open courses. They covered a wide range of industry sectors and job functions thereby giving a more representative sample.

Evaluation of time management training is universally accepted as being difficult in terms of what to measure, when and how. Readers may be familiar with Kirkpatrick’s four level evaluation model where 1 is reaction to the training, 2 is what has been learnt, 3 is about behaviour changes due to the training and 4 is about organisational benefits directly attributable to the training. Level 4 is notoriously difficult to measure simply and with certainty so we opted for a level 3 study; what changes in time management behaviours were evident in the workplace sometime after the training?

Measurement of time management has proved challenging. A variety of questionnaires have been used in previous research but all were prescriptive and unable to accommodate varying training needs. Furthermore, we felt that their measurements were too detailed. For example Macan, whose work has been mentioned on this site, used a questionnaire with constructs such as ‘I set short-term goals for what I want to accomplish in a few days or weeks’ and ‘I make a list of things to do each day and check off each task as it is accomplished’. The problem with this approach is that in order to cover all the aspects of the subject it is often desirable to have multiple definitions of the same concept. Applying this to time management would result in a huge number of operational definitions, making the instrument unwieldy and impractical. Macan attempted to overcome this by simplifying the subject into three broad areas, raising concerns on oversimplification.
So rather than measure at the operational level, we opted for the concept level. Using a Key Skills Questionnaire, participants were asked to rate themselves against the key principles covered by the time management training. These included the ability to plan, prioritise and schedule each day, spend more time on the important rather than the urgent, manage interruptions, reduce forgetfulness, to say ‘no’ in a non-career-threatening way, procrastinate less, decide what is personally important, improve the work/life balance and influence the organisation’s time culture. The instrument was designed to be quick and easy to complete, comprehensive in its coverage and able to be adapted to slightly varying training needs. For instance managing interruptions was not relevant to five sales teams but achieving monthly objectives was. Seven to fifteen measures were therefore used according to the specific needs and duration of each course.

On data collection, most surveys offered either quantitative or qualitative data but few combined the two. We sought to do both by supporting our quantitative scores with qualitative feedback from participants’ managers.

Findings
At the end of each course, participants were invited, on a voluntary basis, to complete their scores on a 1 (low) to 7 (high) rating and again some months after the training. Of the 134 self-reported ‘before and after’ scores, 75 were triangulated through feedback with participants’ managers. 46% agreed and 49% tended to agree with the scores. The remaining 5% who disagreed were equally split between concerns on under and over scoring. Managers were also given the opportunity to provide examples of behaviour changes to support the quantitative findings. This was further supported by two in-depth face-to-face interviews with the managers of two especially high and low scoring courses.

With this methodology, all 19 courses showed a percentage performance gain. The lowest-scoring course averaged an 11% improvement, the highest 48%. Individual improvements varied widely with 89% recording some improvement, 7% no change and 4% showing worse scores. We believe that this is consistent with other research on non-training factors affecting training outcomes. These include personal, psychological and organisational issues, some of which have also been discussed on this website.

In summary, the quantitative and qualitative evidence collected from this survey does suggests that in contrast to many earlier studies, whilst time management training is affected by organisational context and personal motivation, ‘fourth generation training’ does have a positive impact for the majority of participants.

Sources
Green, P. (2004). Managing time: Loving every minute (2nd ed.). Cookham, UK: Chartered Institute of Marketing.
Green, P., & Skinner, D. (2005). Does time management training work? An evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 124–139.
Contact
Peter Green: [email protected] and www.bettertimemanagement.co.uk
Denise Skinner: [email protected] and http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/cucv/Pages/Profile.aspx?profileID=527

 

Posted on

A Wonderful Experience: Presenting at the ICD Conference

I just got back from the Chicago after presenting a session and a workshop at the Institute for Challenging Disorganization (ICD) 2012 Conference. The ICD is an international organization of Professional Organizers, and while I was there, I presented “Baby Steps 101/201: Radically Reducing your Clients’ Time Clutter.” It was an affirming, expanding and amazing experience. More to come on this in future posts.

Posted on

Perfect Time Management – “The Book”

I am in the middle of the third draft of my upcoming book, “Perfect Time Management.” I am in the process of getting some input from a few friendly editors who know a thing or two about Time Management 2.0, and good story-telling.

Once the story holds together I’ll do some copy editing on my own before hiring someone to do a professional job.

It may all sound quite orderly, but be assured… this is my first attempt at a complete book and it’s an unforgiving process. Stuff that looks good today, magically turns into crap tomorrow and I am discovering how much of a “head game” a long creative process really is. It’s not like writing a whole bunch of articles at all…

Stay tuned to this space, as I’ll be passing on more updates as we get closer to the launch  in January 2013.

Posted on

Stupid Fans of Time Management

I wrote a rant this past weekend on the tendency of time management authors, trainers, video bloggers, podcasters like myself to talk down to our clients and readers… and to treat “y’all” as if you aren’t all that smart.

Now, reflecting on what I wrote, I can only hope that I haven’t been committing the same error here at 2Time Labs. I try not to post fluffy, cotton-candy-flavored tip and tricks that can be found anywhere on the Internet, and to get to the heart of things with new thinking. Now that I have ranted out aloud in this new post, I probably should try even harder!

Your thoughts? Here’s the post: Are Our Time Management Clients Stupid?

Posted on

Not Using Time Management Behaviors

I have been catching up on my time management research by looking at some of the few published articles in the field. In some cases, I am re-reading papers that I first saw several years ago with a more informed, mature view than I had in the past.

That’s what I like to think anyway!

A few things are jumping out that never hit me before, that makes me yearn for the establishment of a “School of Time Management” at good institution.

1. Where are the Engineers?

The articles that I am looking at are published from departments of psychology in the main, and are written with a great deal of concern for the individual’s opinion about their time management skills. While I am sympathetic to this point of view, I am doubtful that, by itself, it makes much of a difference. Your opinion about your skills might be interesting to know, but it’s unlikely to produce a breakthrough in performance that can be generalized to all professionals.

It might be my bias as an engineer, as there is something impersonal about someone managing time demands, from my perspective. It’s a bit like shoving parts down an assembly line. Your opinion about the capacity of the line might be interesting, but there is something empirical happening on the line, and it cannot be ignored when we are trying to improve the way the line is balanced. I simply can’t find this kind of research anywhere as it pertains to time management. The engineers have left the building.

2. Everyone is a Time Management User

I noticed this underlying idea popping up in the research: “some people use time management and some don’t.” The researchers then attempt to make a comparison between the two groups in order to show that time management is useful, or not.

This mental model strikes me as fundamentally flawed.

Instead, my research tells me that every functioning adult engages in time management behaviors. If someone can understand what it means to “show up at 2:30pm” then they are engaging in these behaviors, even if they never actually make the appointment.

What varies are the levels of skill, and here at 2Time Labs we have distinguished these skills into Belt levels: white, yellow, orange and green. But it’s a mistake to assume that working professionals don’t do anything. Instead, I observe them acting in ways that are perfectly consistent with their established habit patterns developed over many years, even when they are unaware of them.

This mistake leads to strange outcomes in the research as the comparisons end up being invalid.

3. Training Makes (Almost) No Difference

This finding is probably based on the problems with the two points listed above. If you are not measuring the right things (opinions vs. capacity) and you are comparing apples to apples without knowing it, then it’s not likely that the research will yield too many answers that are actually useful.

As we’d say in business, the “so what” is sadly missing (in the research.)

This doesn’t help the trainers, writers, coaches, professional organizers, etc. who are looking for something that they can use to help people deal with real everyday problems. The research shows correlations between time management training/skills and feel-good constructs like “job satisfaction” but there is little research on the impact of time management on individual capacity or job performance, and the little that exists is mixed.

Obviously, something does make a real difference in the minds of people who are in this field, but it’s too bad that so very little research that’s completed actually sheds any light on what that might be.

And to think… this skill is one that every single working professional in the world uses!

Sources: A Review of the Time Management Literature by Claessens, van Eerde and Rutte.

Posted on

The Inescapable Demands of ToDo Lists

I have noticed a wide and growing number of apps on the new iPhone, Android and laptop  that attempt to improve a user’s personal productivity.  They all seem to focus on the same thing:  how to make better lists.

It’s a bit disheartening, because our research here at 2Time Labs shows that lists work fine for a small number of time demands, but after a certain point an upgrade is needed to using a single schedule instead.  While many people repeat the mythology that “it can’t be done” based on a someone’s opinion, there are many professionals who pull off this trick, and many others who are curious to see if it would make a difference for them.

Some of the data comes from new high quality research conducted by Dr. Dezhi Wu.  A great deal of the proof, however, remains to be established and while I’m hoping that another Dezhi comes along soon, here’s a comparison at the steps that take place in both fundamentals:  Scheduling and Listing.

Imagine a conversation between you and your boss in which a new time demand has popped up. Your boss wants to know whether or not you are able to complete a new assignment – “The Smith Report” – due in two week’s time.

With a single schedule: You pause for a moment to check your schedule to see whether or not you have the space to allocate the 10 hours that are required.

With multiple lists: You pause for a moment to scan your personal memory, because a list of all the to-do’s that you need to do doesn’t tell you if you have the time to complete the report by the due date.

This happens over and over again when you use multiple lists – you must use your memory to try to remember what you planned, and for when. This is not a problem when the number of demands on your time is small, but if you have a great number of commitments, the chore of remembering a mental schedule quickly becomes burdensome.

Imagine, that if have multiple lists, that you can easily make the mistake of telling your boss “Yes,” only to discover that you have other deliverables that you placed on your mental schedule, but simply forgot for the moment. That might be an indication that it’s time for an upgrade.

The problem is that ToDo Lists force you to use memory – this is an inescapable demand of this particular technique.