From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raymond Zeitler Subject: Re: Tracking Interruptions -- Work Flow Question Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 21:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <854362451.903910.1502659799512@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1762394182.645329.1502589720701.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1762394182.645329.1502589720701@mail.yahoo.com> <87h8xcgp5g.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87378vzuo0.fsf@luisa.c0t0d0s0.de> <87378vol94.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Raymond Zeitler Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_903909_1714683948.1502659799510" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0SU-0003dB-HQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:30:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0SR-0002b6-B4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:30:06 -0400 Received: from sonic321-23.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.185.204]:41124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dh0SR-0002aJ-11 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:30:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87378vol94.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Tim Cross , Michael Welle Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" ------=_Part_903909_1714683948.1502659799510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, I agree that it's difficult to assess productivity based solely on the= time I'd spend clocked into Taskerruptions. I came across one other question in this list about interruptions where the= poster was interested in following the pomodoro technique.=C2=A0 (There wa= s no reply.)=C2=A0 But that technique seems geared toward addressing "inter= nal" interruptions, like when I decide that the windows need washing when I= need to do the taxes.=C2=A0 (This after about 45 seconds of reading that w= ebsite.)=C2=A0 My interruptions are almost always what you addressed in you= r last paragraph; they're from people more important than me.=C2=A0 I almos= t never can say, "I'll get back to you."=C2=A0 Although I have taken to rop= ing off my cubicle with a stern "Do Not Disturb" sign on occasion. Just clocking them would be a great start.=C2=A0=C2=A0Maybe I'll figure out= that I can say, "I'll get back to you" in some cases. - Ray From: Tim Cross To: Michael Welle =20 Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [O] Tracking Interruptions -- Work Flow Question =20 I'm not sure there is any *good* way to track interruptions. As pointed out by others, interruptions are not equal and the actual length of the interruption is not necessarily a good reflection of the actual impact to your productivity. I've found two things which have helped me. One has helped to reduce the interruptions and the other has provided some (minimal) help when I've been questions on why a task has taken longer to complete than estimated. The first has been to use a type of pomodoro technique. Essentially, I break my work up into blocks of time where I will not answer the phone, email or anyone coming to my desk. I do run a timer which ticks down and /allow/ interruptions in breaks between 'pomodoros'. The timer is really useful as when someone comes to interrupt me, I can say, come back in x minutes. It takes some training of your work colleagues, but they will eventually respect your request (and being able to give them a definite 'come back in x minutes' helps). The second thing I do is if an interruption cannot be avoided, I do check out of my current task and only check back in once the interruption has finished. While this doesn't tell you how much productivity was actually lost by the interruption, you can at least do some analysis of the clock times and show how often and for how long you were interrupted - or at least working on that task was interrupted. Tim Michael Welle writes: > Hello, > > Eric Abrahamsen writes: > >> Raymond Zeitler writes: >> >>> Does anyone schedule and "org-clock" interruptions? I really need to >>> quantify how much of a drain they are to my productivity. >>> >>> I thought I'd include a generic "** TODO Interruption" in my >>> todo.org (or an inter.org file) and schedule it every day. Then I'd >>> press "I" every time I get interrupted and perhaps tag it with a >>> special term. >>> >>> Or I suppose I could use a capture template just for interruptions. >>> >>> What do you suggest? >> >> Seems to me the danger of interruptions is not how much time they take >> up, but how much time it takes you to recover from them, and get back to >> work. Much harder to clock! > yepp. Maybe add a 'braininess' factor to every task. Tasks, that need a > lot of thinking, let's say hacking, have a higher 'braininess' than, for > instance, sharpening pencils. Depending on the 'braininess' of the > interrupted task add another 15 or 30 minutes to the interruption > account.=20 > > Regards > hmw --=20 Tim Cross =20 ------=_Part_903909_1714683948.1502659799510 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, I agree that it's difficult to a= ssess productivity based solely on the time I'd spend clocked into Taskerru= ptions.

I came across one o= ther question in this list about interruptions where the poster was interes= ted in following the pomodoro technique.  (There was no reply.)  = But that technique seems geared toward addressing "internal" interruptions,= like when I decide that the windows need washing when I need to do the tax= es.  (This after about 45 seconds of reading that website.)  My i= nterruptions are almost always what you addressed in your last paragraph; t= hey're from people more important than me.  I almost never can say, "I= 'll get back to you."  Although I have taken to roping off my cubicle = with a stern "Do Not Disturb" sign on occasion.

Just clocking them would be a great start.=   Maybe I'll figure out that I can say, "I'll get back to = you" in some cases.

- Ray


From: Tim Cross <t= heophilusx@gmail.com>
To: Michael Welle <mwe012008@gmx.net>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 5:45 AM
<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: Re: [O] Tracking Inte= rruptions -- Work Flow Question


I'm not sure = there is any *good* way to track interruptions. As
pointe= d out by others, interruptions are not equal and the actual length
of the interruption is not necessarily a good reflection of the a= ctual
impact to your productivity.

I've found two things which have helped me. One has helped t= o reduce the
interruptions and the other has provided som= e (minimal) help when I've
been questions on why a task h= as taken longer to complete than
estimated.

The first has been to use a type of pomodoro techni= que. Essentially, I
break my work up into blocks of time = where I will not answer the phone,
email or anyone coming= to my desk. I do run a timer which ticks down and
/allow= / interruptions in breaks between 'pomodoros'. The timer is really
useful as when someone comes to interrupt me, I can say, come bac= k in x
minutes. It takes some training of your work colle= agues, but they will
eventually respect your request (and= being able to give them a definite
'come back in x minut= es' helps).

The second thing I do is i= f an interruption cannot be avoided, I do
check out of my= current task and only check back in once the
interruptio= n has finished. While this doesn't tell you how much
prod= uctivity was actually lost by the interruption, you can at least do
some analysis of the clock times and show how often and for how = long you
were interrupted - or at least working on that t= ask was interrupted.

Tim


<= /div> ------=_Part_903909_1714683948.1502659799510--