February 27, 2019 at 08:45You as you want, but I did
Once upon a time I came to a conference and talked about the experience of accelerating the work of programmers. Everyone liked it, many wanted to repeat this experience at home. They began to ask questions, both methodological and technical, on optimizing their own task management system.
Then I went to another conference and told me again. Again heaped up with questions, burned with the desire to change something.
I answered - pf, what's the problem? You are programmers, take it and do it! Add a measurement of tasks, the right system of priorities, consideration of competencies, etc.
But, strangely enough, almost no one rushed to change their system. Now, being engaged in several projects to accelerate teams, I continue to wonder - damn it, what's the problem? I wrote about everything, what and how to do it. For example, in "1C, do not be sick . " But no, they’re sitting, they’re not doing anything, they just say - we want to accelerate, we want to earn more money, we want progress.
In general, I was upset and decided to make this system myself. It turned out Flowcon task management. I hasten to brag - maybe this will push you to change your system?
Task management in Flowcon is two in one: configuration for 1C platform and cloud service. They can work both in pairs and separately. The configuration can, and should be put on any other corporate information system used in the enterprise. Because tasks in isolation from data are much less effective.
The configuration is growing like a snowball, in a good way. The farther, the more useful and functional it is. We use it ourselves, and constantly enrich it with new ideas - both ours and users.
The key difference between Flowcon task management is that it is a configuration implemented using the methodology. This is not another solution in which "you can customize your business processes."
You probably know a simple truth: the problem is in the process, and not in its automation.
We have been developing a methodology for managing tasks and projects, which improves work efficiency, for several years. And on internal automation, when they worked in factories, and on the development of mass products, and on implementation projects for external customers.
This technique became the foundation of Flowcon, and the task management configuration simply automates its application.
Accordingly, I want to caution those who want to repeat my path: if it is fundamentally important for you to work the way you are used to, then such solutions may not suit you. Maybe that's why no one is modifying their system?
Something, of course, will work out, it may become more transparent, or simpler, or more interesting, but you will not get the main thing - improving efficiency.
If your efficiency is not growing, or not measured at all (the assessment “yes, everything seems normal” is not a measurement), then the problem is in the process, in the task management technique. What then is the point of taking or creating another solution, adapting it to your processes, and getting the same result?
So be prepared for change. Otherwise, disappointment awaits you - efficiency will not grow.
Increasing efficiency is the main purpose of Flowcon, both as a technique and as an automated system.
A brief history of the Flowcon technique is not so short, because it lasted more than 10 years. But we tried to shorten as much as we could - here's an article .
The process of moving the task is very simple, consists of three participants - the initiator, the responsible and the executor. In our practice, this is the most common case.
The initiator is the one who sets the task. It can be an internal customer, like the chief accountant, or a boss, or a person can set a task for himself. The person in charge is the coordinator who distributes the tasks. Maybe the head of the unit, or team leader, or just a coordinator - such positions also occur.
The contractor is the one who directly implements what is written in the task. The contractor is selected by the responsible.
Of course, all these roles can be performed by one person - I myself basically do this because I use the bottle for myself. In order not to spend a lot of time choosing ourselves, we attached quick buttons.
In the Flowcon technique, the life cycle of a task is critical. For each of them, at any given time, it should be clear who should do what and what. Hire, execute, check the result, appoint an artist, etc.
The life cycle looks like this:
1. The initiator creates a task, indicates the responsible person, writes what he wants;
2. The responsible person has two options - accept the task for work, or send it for revision if the statement is unsuitable:
3. At any time, until the task has passed the entire cycle, the initiator can cancel it;
4. If the responsible sends the task for revision, the initiator can either meet him or cancel the task:
5. When the task is finally accepted into the work, it is necessary to appoint an executor - this is the responsibility of the responsible;
6. The executor does not have many options - he can only complete the task
7. When the executor has finished, the task flies to the initiator, who has two reasonable options for action:
8. If the initiator is satisfied with the result, the task life cycle ends. If something is wrong, then the task is returned to the performer.
The history of the change of statuses, that is, the life cycle of the task, is preserved:
History is needed in order to evaluate the time loss at the approval stages, and correlate it with the execution time in the relevant reports.
The current status of the task is displayed both in the form of a document:
And in the form of a list of all tasks:
Fundamentally, a task can be in three ways:
1. Someone needs a solution;
2. It must be performed;
3. You must forget about it.
We'll talk about implementation further, but for now, about decision making. Admission to work, appointment of an executor, clarification of the statement, verification of the result, revision - all these are conditions in which someone has to make some kind of decision.
The Flowcon technique says that decisions should be made as quickly as possible, because as long as there is no solution, the task hangs on the corresponding section of the life cycle.
In order not to torment users, we divided the list of tasks into three principal sections: make a decision, complete and just a list of all tasks.
The tab “In work” gathers all the tasks for which the current user of the system needs to make a decision:
The beauty is that there is no need to look for anything. I went into the form of a task list and immediately saw where you need your solution. He scattered everything, and took up execution. The normal decision-making list is empty.
But the bottle would not be a bottle if it did not control decision-making. There is a time standard for each type of solution in the Flowcon settings:
It is clear that in real life you cannot describe all users with the same standard - someone really can’t make a decision within an hour? Therefore, it is possible to set individual numbers in the extension of the user:
Accordingly, the response time is displayed in the "Make a decision" list so that the person does not worry:
The parameters of the task are the assessment in points, the urgency / importance and the deadline:
Assessment of the task in points is the most important thing. In the Flowcon technique, a whole section is devoted to this, so I will not repeat it.
To set the task deadline or not, the initiator decides. I do not have a definite recommendation regarding whether a task needs a deadline or not. It is important to understand what this term means.
The only thing I want to note is: there must still be a certain period, otherwise the priority system (see below) will make the task never be solved. Therefore, we have two options in the settings:
A reasonable deadline is a certain default deadline that is set for all tasks if the initiator has not indicated an exact date. The checkbox “Always set a deadline” is a purely interface one, it raises the flag “Must be completed by deadline” in each new task.
Urgency and importance are priorities according to the Eisenhower matrix. Understanding that the opinion of the initiator and the responsible person may differ, we are able to prioritize everyone. These details are not required.
The priority system is one of the most important parts of the bottle. The methodology has written a lot about why it is important to maximize the ability to choose a task for the performer - effectiveness will only benefit from this, and the person will not be tormented.
We thought for a long time how to arrange a system of priorities, and came to the simplest solution - summing up individual estimates of each factor affecting priority. Now there are five such factors (there will be more):
you simply put priority points for each factor, and the system looks at the task, and if the factor is present, it adds them to the overall priority figure. For example, if you chose only one factor - the urgency of the initiator, and set him 2 points, then the urgent task will have priority 2, and not urgent - 0.
I’ll say a little more about the status of the buffer. A buffer is the length of the length of time from the date the task was taken to work until the deadline. For example, let it be 10 days.
At any moment in time we are at some point in this segment. One day has passed - it means behind 10% of the segment. Three days passed - 30%, etc.
Accordingly, there is an inverse figure - how much time is left before the deadline. If one day has passed, then 90% is left. If three days have passed, then 70% remains, etc. This is the status of the buffer.
Well, then everything is simple. In the priority setting, you put a number called “Buffer Status Limit” - this is the amount added to the priority when the buffer status is zero, that is, the deadline for completing the task has come. And until the deadline has come, this figure is multiplied by the length of the time section passed.
For example, you give a rating of 10. If 30% of the time has passed, then 3. will be added to the priority. If the task has just been set, then 0. will be added. If there is no time left, then 10. will be added.
And if the deadline has already passed, more than 10 will be added. For example, if 150% of the time has passed, then 15 will be added. Thus, no task will be lost, and not lost.
Priority settings are stored in the Queue Settings directory. Since this is a reference, it’s clear that you can have as many settings as you like. The main, working by default, is specified in the Flowcon settings. For a particular artist, you can override it in the user extension.
The main point that we put into the system of priorities is simplicity. Both settings and use. The priority system needs to be set up once, and for a long time to forget about it - it will work itself.
If the priorities according to the Eisenhower matrix are static, then according to the status of the buffer they are dynamic. The system will not forget that time is running, and will automatically move tasks in the queue to prevent delays.
Each task is assigned, and the number in the queue is automatically recounted. The queue is tied to the current executor, i.e. everyone has her own.
The current number in the queue and priority can be seen both in the form of a task:
So in the list of tasks for execution:
The list of tasks, of course, is sorted by number in the queue. The contractor should just take them in order and do it. And if he doesn’t, then the bottle will show it.
The executor observes the sequence or not, it can be seen in the report “Schedule of deviations from the queue”:
When the executor closes the task as completed, the system remembers what position in the queue it was. Well, and draws on the graph the amount of deviations for the period. Deviation is the difference between the position in the queue at the time of closing and the unit.
As you can see, we have a big problem with Oksnosoft. And when they crossed to the bottle and saw, they grabbed their heads and began to correct themselves - the schedule went down.
The second report is the Performance Chart. This is the most important report in which there will be a video increase in the effectiveness of performers. The graph displays the number of points of completed tasks, in relation to the period.
For example, here's what happened to our effectiveness:
It is clearly visible when we went on vacation - March and August, there was a failure in the total points. Although, in general, the trend is positive and very impressive.
An equally important report, necessary, first of all, to the coordinator every day is the “Control of Performers”.
This report is all in one window. No need to yank anyone, ask who works how, who has done how much. I went in and looked.
What is important - the execution of tasks is divided by periods in order to avoid the influence of “outbreaks” - for example, if the performer closed one large task today and has not done anything since the beginning of the month. Here you can see immediately a month, a week, and today. A backlight in red will help to understand who has normal dynamics and who has difficulties. Great reason to talk.
The number of reports will grow, so far only those that cannot be dispensed with.
The most important direction in the development of the system is instant assessment. Since we know how fast performers work, how they comply with the queue, how they fit the deadlines, we can make predictions. For example, how much real time a task will take.
The functionality of instant estimates is not yet completed, as long as there is only one parameter - the current speed, i.e. how many points a person performs per day.
It can be seen in the form of the choice of the executor: The
person in charge, knowing the assessment of the task, can immediately figure out to whom it is better to entrust her, based on the current speed.
What is a task management system without debate? We also have comments.
The comments are hierarchical, therefore it is clear who answers whom and to whom. Accounting for reading comments is kept, therefore, those with something to read are highlighted in bold:
The technique of the bottle says that people should collaborate. It often happens that one person helps another solve a problem. It is important for us that everyone’s contribution is taken into account, therefore, in the task it is possible to clarify the list of performers and determine for each the coefficient of labor participation (KTU): The
points for the task will be divided between the performers, in proportion to KTU. So, it seems, more honest.
By the way, while writing an article, my entire list of tasks for making a decision turned red:
For now, everything seems to be.
Then I went to another conference and told me again. Again heaped up with questions, burned with the desire to change something.
I answered - pf, what's the problem? You are programmers, take it and do it! Add a measurement of tasks, the right system of priorities, consideration of competencies, etc.
But, strangely enough, almost no one rushed to change their system. Now, being engaged in several projects to accelerate teams, I continue to wonder - damn it, what's the problem? I wrote about everything, what and how to do it. For example, in "1C, do not be sick . " But no, they’re sitting, they’re not doing anything, they just say - we want to accelerate, we want to earn more money, we want progress.
In general, I was upset and decided to make this system myself. It turned out Flowcon task management. I hasten to brag - maybe this will push you to change your system?
Task management in Flowcon is two in one: configuration for 1C platform and cloud service. They can work both in pairs and separately. The configuration can, and should be put on any other corporate information system used in the enterprise. Because tasks in isolation from data are much less effective.
The configuration is growing like a snowball, in a good way. The farther, the more useful and functional it is. We use it ourselves, and constantly enrich it with new ideas - both ours and users.
Methodology
The key difference between Flowcon task management is that it is a configuration implemented using the methodology. This is not another solution in which "you can customize your business processes."
You probably know a simple truth: the problem is in the process, and not in its automation.
We have been developing a methodology for managing tasks and projects, which improves work efficiency, for several years. And on internal automation, when they worked in factories, and on the development of mass products, and on implementation projects for external customers.
This technique became the foundation of Flowcon, and the task management configuration simply automates its application.
Accordingly, I want to caution those who want to repeat my path: if it is fundamentally important for you to work the way you are used to, then such solutions may not suit you. Maybe that's why no one is modifying their system?
Something, of course, will work out, it may become more transparent, or simpler, or more interesting, but you will not get the main thing - improving efficiency.
If your efficiency is not growing, or not measured at all (the assessment “yes, everything seems normal” is not a measurement), then the problem is in the process, in the task management technique. What then is the point of taking or creating another solution, adapting it to your processes, and getting the same result?
So be prepared for change. Otherwise, disappointment awaits you - efficiency will not grow.
Increasing efficiency is the main purpose of Flowcon, both as a technique and as an automated system.
A brief history of the Flowcon technique
A brief history of the Flowcon technique is not so short, because it lasted more than 10 years. But we tried to shorten as much as we could - here's an article .
Process
The process of moving the task is very simple, consists of three participants - the initiator, the responsible and the executor. In our practice, this is the most common case.
The initiator is the one who sets the task. It can be an internal customer, like the chief accountant, or a boss, or a person can set a task for himself. The person in charge is the coordinator who distributes the tasks. Maybe the head of the unit, or team leader, or just a coordinator - such positions also occur.
The contractor is the one who directly implements what is written in the task. The contractor is selected by the responsible.
Of course, all these roles can be performed by one person - I myself basically do this because I use the bottle for myself. In order not to spend a lot of time choosing ourselves, we attached quick buttons.
Task life cycle
In the Flowcon technique, the life cycle of a task is critical. For each of them, at any given time, it should be clear who should do what and what. Hire, execute, check the result, appoint an artist, etc.
The life cycle looks like this:
1. The initiator creates a task, indicates the responsible person, writes what he wants;
2. The responsible person has two options - accept the task for work, or send it for revision if the statement is unsuitable:
3. At any time, until the task has passed the entire cycle, the initiator can cancel it;
4. If the responsible sends the task for revision, the initiator can either meet him or cancel the task:
5. When the task is finally accepted into the work, it is necessary to appoint an executor - this is the responsibility of the responsible;
6. The executor does not have many options - he can only complete the task
7. When the executor has finished, the task flies to the initiator, who has two reasonable options for action:
8. If the initiator is satisfied with the result, the task life cycle ends. If something is wrong, then the task is returned to the performer.
The history of the change of statuses, that is, the life cycle of the task, is preserved:
History is needed in order to evaluate the time loss at the approval stages, and correlate it with the execution time in the relevant reports.
The current status of the task is displayed both in the form of a document:
And in the form of a list of all tasks:
Regular management
Fundamentally, a task can be in three ways:
1. Someone needs a solution;
2. It must be performed;
3. You must forget about it.
We'll talk about implementation further, but for now, about decision making. Admission to work, appointment of an executor, clarification of the statement, verification of the result, revision - all these are conditions in which someone has to make some kind of decision.
The Flowcon technique says that decisions should be made as quickly as possible, because as long as there is no solution, the task hangs on the corresponding section of the life cycle.
In order not to torment users, we divided the list of tasks into three principal sections: make a decision, complete and just a list of all tasks.
The tab “In work” gathers all the tasks for which the current user of the system needs to make a decision:
The beauty is that there is no need to look for anything. I went into the form of a task list and immediately saw where you need your solution. He scattered everything, and took up execution. The normal decision-making list is empty.
But the bottle would not be a bottle if it did not control decision-making. There is a time standard for each type of solution in the Flowcon settings:
It is clear that in real life you cannot describe all users with the same standard - someone really can’t make a decision within an hour? Therefore, it is possible to set individual numbers in the extension of the user:
Accordingly, the response time is displayed in the "Make a decision" list so that the person does not worry:
Task parameters
The parameters of the task are the assessment in points, the urgency / importance and the deadline:
Assessment of the task in points is the most important thing. In the Flowcon technique, a whole section is devoted to this, so I will not repeat it.
To set the task deadline or not, the initiator decides. I do not have a definite recommendation regarding whether a task needs a deadline or not. It is important to understand what this term means.
The only thing I want to note is: there must still be a certain period, otherwise the priority system (see below) will make the task never be solved. Therefore, we have two options in the settings:
A reasonable deadline is a certain default deadline that is set for all tasks if the initiator has not indicated an exact date. The checkbox “Always set a deadline” is a purely interface one, it raises the flag “Must be completed by deadline” in each new task.
Urgency and importance are priorities according to the Eisenhower matrix. Understanding that the opinion of the initiator and the responsible person may differ, we are able to prioritize everyone. These details are not required.
Priority system
The priority system is one of the most important parts of the bottle. The methodology has written a lot about why it is important to maximize the ability to choose a task for the performer - effectiveness will only benefit from this, and the person will not be tormented.
We thought for a long time how to arrange a system of priorities, and came to the simplest solution - summing up individual estimates of each factor affecting priority. Now there are five such factors (there will be more):
you simply put priority points for each factor, and the system looks at the task, and if the factor is present, it adds them to the overall priority figure. For example, if you chose only one factor - the urgency of the initiator, and set him 2 points, then the urgent task will have priority 2, and not urgent - 0.
I’ll say a little more about the status of the buffer. A buffer is the length of the length of time from the date the task was taken to work until the deadline. For example, let it be 10 days.
At any moment in time we are at some point in this segment. One day has passed - it means behind 10% of the segment. Three days passed - 30%, etc.
Accordingly, there is an inverse figure - how much time is left before the deadline. If one day has passed, then 90% is left. If three days have passed, then 70% remains, etc. This is the status of the buffer.
Well, then everything is simple. In the priority setting, you put a number called “Buffer Status Limit” - this is the amount added to the priority when the buffer status is zero, that is, the deadline for completing the task has come. And until the deadline has come, this figure is multiplied by the length of the time section passed.
For example, you give a rating of 10. If 30% of the time has passed, then 3. will be added to the priority. If the task has just been set, then 0. will be added. If there is no time left, then 10. will be added.
And if the deadline has already passed, more than 10 will be added. For example, if 150% of the time has passed, then 15 will be added. Thus, no task will be lost, and not lost.
Priority settings are stored in the Queue Settings directory. Since this is a reference, it’s clear that you can have as many settings as you like. The main, working by default, is specified in the Flowcon settings. For a particular artist, you can override it in the user extension.
The main point that we put into the system of priorities is simplicity. Both settings and use. The priority system needs to be set up once, and for a long time to forget about it - it will work itself.
If the priorities according to the Eisenhower matrix are static, then according to the status of the buffer they are dynamic. The system will not forget that time is running, and will automatically move tasks in the queue to prevent delays.
Each task is assigned, and the number in the queue is automatically recounted. The queue is tied to the current executor, i.e. everyone has her own.
The current number in the queue and priority can be seen both in the form of a task:
So in the list of tasks for execution:
The list of tasks, of course, is sorted by number in the queue. The contractor should just take them in order and do it. And if he doesn’t, then the bottle will show it.
Reports
The executor observes the sequence or not, it can be seen in the report “Schedule of deviations from the queue”:
When the executor closes the task as completed, the system remembers what position in the queue it was. Well, and draws on the graph the amount of deviations for the period. Deviation is the difference between the position in the queue at the time of closing and the unit.
As you can see, we have a big problem with Oksnosoft. And when they crossed to the bottle and saw, they grabbed their heads and began to correct themselves - the schedule went down.
The second report is the Performance Chart. This is the most important report in which there will be a video increase in the effectiveness of performers. The graph displays the number of points of completed tasks, in relation to the period.
For example, here's what happened to our effectiveness:
It is clearly visible when we went on vacation - March and August, there was a failure in the total points. Although, in general, the trend is positive and very impressive.
An equally important report, necessary, first of all, to the coordinator every day is the “Control of Performers”.
This report is all in one window. No need to yank anyone, ask who works how, who has done how much. I went in and looked.
What is important - the execution of tasks is divided by periods in order to avoid the influence of “outbreaks” - for example, if the performer closed one large task today and has not done anything since the beginning of the month. Here you can see immediately a month, a week, and today. A backlight in red will help to understand who has normal dynamics and who has difficulties. Great reason to talk.
The number of reports will grow, so far only those that cannot be dispensed with.
Instant ratings
The most important direction in the development of the system is instant assessment. Since we know how fast performers work, how they comply with the queue, how they fit the deadlines, we can make predictions. For example, how much real time a task will take.
The functionality of instant estimates is not yet completed, as long as there is only one parameter - the current speed, i.e. how many points a person performs per day.
It can be seen in the form of the choice of the executor: The
person in charge, knowing the assessment of the task, can immediately figure out to whom it is better to entrust her, based on the current speed.
Comments
What is a task management system without debate? We also have comments.
The comments are hierarchical, therefore it is clear who answers whom and to whom. Accounting for reading comments is kept, therefore, those with something to read are highlighted in bold:
Cooperation
The technique of the bottle says that people should collaborate. It often happens that one person helps another solve a problem. It is important for us that everyone’s contribution is taken into account, therefore, in the task it is possible to clarify the list of performers and determine for each the coefficient of labor participation (KTU): The
points for the task will be divided between the performers, in proportion to KTU. So, it seems, more honest.
By the way, while writing an article, my entire list of tasks for making a decision turned red:
For now, everything seems to be.