I like this metaphor a lot (though I agree with critical replies that question its value as a theory.)
Speaking of reducing activation costs, breaking big tasks down into atomic physical doable actions and figuring out the ‘next action’, GTD-style, can greatly reduce activation cost. GTD’s concept of “next action” was extremely useful to me—it was the missing key piece of my own productivity system (which, as it turned out, is pretty similar to Allen’s GTD in many areas).
Speaking of reducing activation costs, breaking big tasks down into atomic physical doable actions and figuring out the ‘next action’, GTD-style, can greatly reduce activation cost.
Technically, GTD only moves the activation cost around, though it does reduce switching costs by batching up the processing.
In other words, the “activation cost” of a vague/unspecified task is that you must first make it clear and specific. GTD doesn’t eliminate this cost, just batches it up and advises you get in the habit of paying it early rather than late.
I like this metaphor a lot (though I agree with critical replies that question its value as a theory.)
Speaking of reducing activation costs, breaking big tasks down into atomic physical doable actions and figuring out the ‘next action’, GTD-style, can greatly reduce activation cost. GTD’s concept of “next action” was extremely useful to me—it was the missing key piece of my own productivity system (which, as it turned out, is pretty similar to Allen’s GTD in many areas).
Technically, GTD only moves the activation cost around, though it does reduce switching costs by batching up the processing.
In other words, the “activation cost” of a vague/unspecified task is that you must first make it clear and specific. GTD doesn’t eliminate this cost, just batches it up and advises you get in the habit of paying it early rather than late.