Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’m particularly intrigued by the notion of the inbox as a buffer, rather than as a demand creator.

I think you’re also spot on the need to find the balance between flexibility/chaos of the inbox and rigidity/organization of the calendar. I suspect that there’s no simple answer to this….

What I hear is “be economic, and know your limits” – understand the difference between importance and urgency (and prioritise) and to stick doggedly to one task.

Like you say, the visual aspect of calendar management is good, but plan too rigidly and you have an inflexible monster. I don’t want to spend all my time scheduling, because it reduces my productivity (and goodness knows I tend to procrastinate anyway!). I’ve tried being flexible & reactive, and all I end up doing is fighting fires!

Conflict exists in either option, I’m sure, as in manufacturing. Somewhere there must be a trade-off. Even flow requires a little stock to ensure it keeps moving, and like you said – flow systems need smoothed demand. Maybe there’s a happy medium which allows (using the model that you propose) for the reactivity of Inbox time management, but the visual focus of the Calendar time management?

I think the pertinent question is: how do you move tasks from your inbox to your calendar?

Thinking of constraints made me think of Goldratt, & TOC. I imagine, not having met him, that he would say: find the constraint and manage that using Drum, Buffer Rope. I guess though if time is the ultimate constraint, to say “manage it” is unhelpful – I’ll need to dig further.

How about I put this idea bang in the middle of your flowline/inbox and your WIP/calendar by moving the ‘stock’ upstream to the inbox to help manage the ‘constraint’:

• Your inbox is a buffer whether you like it or not – there’s always more than you can do, else time management wouldn’t be an issue. Flow is an illusion here – the inbox doesn’t create demand, it stores it. Instead of allowing it to control you, use it as a buffer to protect your constraint (the here and now), enabling you to manage it effectively.

• Use Little’s Law to your advantage by reducing the rate of entry: I find an importance/urgency 2×2 matrix helps identify what you must do now, what you should make time for to prevent problems, what you don’t need to do, and what you should delegate. Keeping on top of Vital and Stragetic tasks should help keep demand smooth (reduced firefighting).

• This bit is tricky – you find the balance between flexibility/chaos of the Inbox and rigidity/organisation/WIP of the Calendar in your work environment, this is how you move work from your filtered buffer to your workstream:

o You decide how many days ahead you plan, and doggedly stick to it – this governs your flexibility (in TOC terms this is the Rope, letting work in upstream at the rate you can work at) and you’re consistently responsive so people know how much notice you will need,
o You decide how often you plan (too often is probably wasteful, too little makes you inflexible) moving work from your inbox buffer to your workstream calendar. This is your Drum, giving you takt. (I’m starting to wish I could draw a picture here).

(I guess this bit is like your manufacturing batch, and your transfer batch).
• I suppose you may need to schedule in an hour each day to be available for quick queries – I think your analogy of a GP/doctor is apt.

It’s just a thought, but maybe I’ll try it for a while to see if it works in practice – who knows, maybe it’s just another monster…

Anyone fancy working on a google calendar app?

Agreed: it does become a monster. And you do spend a lot of time managing it. I’m trying to figure out that problem as well, but haven’t yet come up with a good answer. Perhaps it’s just the cost of doing business, just like time spent doing 5S is necessary but not necessarily “productive”?

Please tell me more about QV Systems and Oobeya.