Skip to main content

Ducks In A Row

I'm trying to "get all my ducks in a row" as the saying goes. I've got a lot of standing projects, some personal and some professional and many straddling a line between those two.

As part of the process of figuring out what I need to do, I need to figure out what I want to do. I've got a broad range of things demanding my time and a broader range of things I'm wishing I could put my time to. There simply isn't enough of me to go around.

I see so many others around and they seem so much more productive than me. Where do you find the time? How do you do it? I've obviously got some missing element I need to find.

The plan at hand is a simple set of actions.

  • Track my time 24 hours a day. This keeps me focused, especially for non-billable hours.
  • Decide on each standing project if I can do anything. If not now, archive it. If never, delete it.
  • Write every morning. Write more whenever I have something on my mind.
There are things I wish I had time for that I never will. I never sketch any more and I haven't picked up the guitar in a decade. I'll focus on what I can accomplish so that I don't have time to feel bad about the things I cannot accomplish.
Labels:

Comments

Tucanae Services said…
Little tip. You are focusing on the 'what'. That is fine, but its a level 1 prioritization of things. The things you need for todays tasks.

If you want to get to level 2 kind of productivity then you need to be asking 'who' in two directions. Who is demanding tasks of me and is their request superior to other who's on my plate. The second part of the equation is who could some of the requests be delegated to if any? Be sure to include yourself in the matrix of who in the prioritzation.

We go through life with constant demands to get-things-done. Much of the world finds that just perfect. But those that seem more productive are not asking how to be more productive but who to be more productive with.

Find the who.
2:02 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on
1 comment
Read more

Statement Functions

At a small suggestion in #python, I wrote up a simple module that allows the use of many python statements in places requiring statements. This post serves as the announcement and documentation. You can find the release here . The pattern is the statement's keyword appended with a single underscore, so the first, of course, is print_. The example writes 'some+text' to an IOString for a URL query string. This mostly follows what it seems the print function will be in py3k. print_("some", "text", outfile=query_iostring, sep="+", end="") An obvious second choice was to wrap if statements. They take a condition value, and expect a truth value or callback an an optional else value or callback. Values and callbacks are named if_true, cb_true, if_false, and cb_false. if_(raw_input("Continue?")=="Y", cb_true=play_game, cb_false=quit) Of course, often your else might be an error case, so raising an exception could be useful
1 comment
Read more

How To Teach Software Development

How To Teach Software Development Introduction Developers Quality Control Motivation Execution Businesses Students Schools Education is broken. Education about software development is even more broken. It is a sad observation of the industry from my eyes. I come to see good developers from what should be great educations as survivors, more than anything. Do they get a headstart from their education or do they overcome it? This is the first part in a series on software education. I want to open a discussion here. Please comment if you have thoughts. Blog about it, yourself. Write about how you disagree with me. Write more if you don't. We have a troubled industry. We care enough to do something about it. We hark on the bad developers the way people used to point at freak shows, but we only hurt ourselves but not improving the situation. We have to deal with their bad code. We are the twenty percent and we can't talk to the eighty percent, by definition, so we need to impro
4 comments
Read more