Fwd: Re: [whups] Possible change - numeric priorities?

[Jason M. Felice]

Er, didn't use "Reply to List"...


----- Forwarded message from jfelice at cronosys.com -----
    Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2004 14:11:26 -0400
    From: "Jason M. Felice" <jfelice at cronosys.com>
Reply-To: "Jason M. Felice" <jfelice at cronosys.com>
 Subject: Re: [whups] Possible change - numeric priorities?
      To: Bo Daley <bo at tilda.com.au>

Quoting Bo Daley <bo at tilda.com.au>:

> Quoting Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:
>
>> Zitat von Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:
>>
>>> What would folks think of just having priority be a number from 0
>>> to 100? Would
>>> make priorities more computer-processable and simpler.
>>
>> Yeah, but less intuitive for users. I already disliked the change in Nag,
>> though I understand it was necessary.
>
> Well I already name priorities with numbers at the start (and the default
> priorities do that too) like '1. Low', '2. Medium' etc.. That's just
> enough to
> make it possible to order columns by priority, but might not be enough for
> other stuff. What kind of processing were you thinking about?

I number my priorities, too. I have 1. Urgent, 2. High, 3. Normal, 4. Low, 5.
Postponed.

I use nag and whups extensively, and I've been thinking about "The
Prioritizing
Problem."  First, I'm a firm believer in "One True Task List" with consistent
prioritizing method.  Otherwise I do a mental flip-flop between nag and whups
and what I have written down on paper and what's written on my calendar at
home, and I can't be sure that I'm working on the most important item.

I usually have between 60 and 80 items on my task list at any one time, so
prioritizing is a big deal. I definitely recommend numeric priorities,
although
they aren't a complete solution.  I've contemplated how my priorities
shift and
change and I've got a theory about the best method for prioritization.  Either
the system or the user has several different "priority areas".  In my case,
they would be "marketing," "programming," and "administrative."  These have to
be kept in balance.  If I focus only on programming efforts, I'll wake up one
morning with nothing to do and I'll be looking at a three month process to get
something in the queue to get paid.  If I don't deliver any work, people get
pissed, wonder where their work is, and go elsewhere.  If I don't do
administrative, the place falls apart and goes boom.

I've come to the conclusion that this is the mechanism behind the days when I
have to reprioritize everything on my list (which can take more than an
hour)--the balance between these priority areas has changed.  If each task had
a rating for each area, the list could reprioritize itself.

Note that the idea of "priority areas" are very similar to balanced scorecard
"factors".  If I ever get the chance to do a balanced scorecard app, I could
have my task list adapt to the actual state of the business in real time!

Anyway, those were my pie-in-the-sky thoughts.  Feel free to ignore them :)

--
  Jason M. Felice
  Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
  216-221-4600 x302

----- End forwarded message -----


--
 Jason M. Felice
 Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
 216-221-4600 x302