One of the ways to get things done faster is to set a tight deadline…and then pare down the task at hand to the bare essentials. The setting of tight deadlines is known as time compression, and it can spur creativity. But if you set a close deadline, it is essential that you also get rid of the non-essential parts to the task. Here is an illustration:
There are three basic elements in any item that needs to be done: how many people are doing it, the time alloted, and the amount of stuff to do. Think of it this way: you have a piece of string. You make a knot in the string to form a loop, then pin the knot to your desk. This represents the people; in this case, you. Now put take two fingers and put them on the inside of the loop so that they pull the string into a triangle.
Visualize this on a graph. The y-axis is (negative) time, or the time closest to the pinned point is the furthest away in true time; and x-axis is the amount that can be done. If time is very far away from today (low on the y-axis), the amount that can be accomplished is greater (Fig. 1). If you move time far up the y-axis, or require something to be done sooner, the amount that can be done must be reduced. (Fig. 2)
Figure 1 
Figure 2 
So it follows that if you need to get something done quicker, you need to eliminate things from what needs to be done.
Fixing the second point of amount to be done does not allow you to move the time frame. Conversely, if you don’t eliminate things from the task at hand, part of you will be resisting the task from the belief that there is too much to do in the short time span.
A recent article (Simplicity Rules » How to Work Faster) talks about time compression. There are a couple of really good points about “gotchas” with this:
It’s easy to get trapped into not believing the arbitrary deadline…All you need is…the important nugget at the center.”
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
2 comments ↓
Let us see whether I have understood the concept: … the less one does, the less time it takes, right?
Pascal:
I think you have over-simplified it. But your point is correct.
Here is another way of looking at the relationship:
Assume you are the only one person working on a task, let’s call it Task A. Task A is made up of parts, let’s call them Parts 1, 2 and 3. Part 1 is the essential guts of the task, and parts 2 and 3 are things that are just the finishing touches or non-essential to the business of Task A.
If you know it will take 2 hours to complete parts 1 and 2, but someone comes along and says you only have 1 hour to complete the task. You cannot do both parts 1 and 2 of the task because the time has compressed.
Likewise, if you are given 3 hours to complete the task, and you know it will take 2 hours to do parts 1 and 2, and 1/2 hour to do part 3, you now have time to do all three tasks.
The expansion part is pretty intuitive — the more time you have, the more you can add.
What I find in the compression area, though, is that far too many people think that compressing the time has no effect on how much can be accomplished.
I have seen far too many managers say, “You need three hours to get parts 1, 2 and 3 done? Do it in 0.5 hours.” and then not understand this is not possible.
The point of the article is that when resources are fixed, time and amount accomplished are related.
Comment Policy:
Comments on this blog are moderated. Rude comments will be deleted.
Leave a Comment