When I was a junior programmer, I wanted to maximize productivity which I defined as output / input.
As I gained experience, I wanted to maximize output only, figuring that input would naturally minimize itself as I got more proficient.
Now I only worry about 2 things:
1. maximizing output of the top item on my list
2. making sure the right item is at the top of my list
This seems to be working much better than any other approach I have ever taken. When I make the most progress on the most important item, things like project management, efficiency, and time management suddenly seem much less important.
The only thing I seem to worry about is making sure that the total amount of work on my 'list' is smaller when I quit the day than when I begin it. Most days I seem to be losing that battle.
I don't think this is the criterion you want - if I won the lottery, for example, my to-do list would explode with all the new possibilities presented before me; however, if that happened, I certainly wouldn't consider it a bad day. :)
Good point, I had in mind that all things being otherwise equal and being occupied with more or less the same stuff for the duration of the existence of said list.
"I had in mind that all things being otherwise equal and being occupied with more or less the same stuff for the duration of the existence of said list."
Well put. With computers you can replicate something ad infinitum. If you get to do something no one has ever done before, you can make input irrelevant.
As I gained experience, I wanted to maximize output only, figuring that input would naturally minimize itself as I got more proficient.
Now I only worry about 2 things:
This seems to be working much better than any other approach I have ever taken. When I make the most progress on the most important item, things like project management, efficiency, and time management suddenly seem much less important.