3 ms·
Being parallel on a task is a little silly. Being on parallel projects is very possible, and is also a great way to happen when there are "waiting fors" on pro
by gte910h 16y ago
Being parallel on a task is a little silly.
Being on parallel projects is very possible, and is also a great way to happen when there are "waiting fors" on projects, either from lack of specification, lack of data, lack of knowledge, etc. It also is a great way to combat some burnout or dealing with a very hard project (which you can only do for so many hours a day directly).
I do agree most businesses are unwilling to properly prioritize. But the idea each person should work on one and only one thing till complete is a little out there.
- prknight 16y ago+1 not to mention that some people just do better when they have more than one project running concurrently. A contrary approach to working non-parallel is the little and often philosophy (Mark Forster talks about this in his time management books). Working on big projects in small chunks, but with great regularity. Personally I only switch to a strictly 'serial' approach when I'm faced with a deadline, I'm in a zone or when I'm feeling stubborn about getting something solved. The problem with serial mode is that it tends to reduce quality and drains energy to an extent.
- joe_the_user 16y agoWait... At a certain point, you have to ask, "What is two tasks and what is one?" Currently I'm working on a GUI. In the testing phase, I notice a number of bugs. I can usually get an idea what's needed to fix each bugs and then do all the fixes before I have to go back to another testing phase. Am I "multitasking" since I don't necessarily tackle each bug separately? This certainly seems much faster than shops where I had to always be working on bug X at any given moment.