Reviewing Stephen R Covey's Management Matrix or Eisenhower's matrix

I am not an expert in management topics, but, high-time I get into these as I have started working again. The most important one which comes to my mind is Stephen R Covey's management matrix which is discussed about very highly everywhere. I think I am in my stage of life where I have to look into this much more deeply than ever before. As I am dealing with numerous projects now, it makes it much more fun to learn these principles and put it to practise rather than just reading about it and just letting it away. Personally, I admit that I have not been a very ordered person, sometimes I have failed to manage time properly and have regretted a lot and I do not want to be in that situation anymore. So, I would like to discuss about the fundamental questions (and answer) that one begins to ask about any topic he/she has in his/her mind - the why, what and how. To begin with a piece of trivia, the management matrix was actually the brainchild of Dwight D Eisenhower, but, popularised by Covey [1]. Eisenhower is supposed to have said what is urgent is seldom important and what is important is seldom urgent [2], but, it may not always be correct. Let's see for ourselves.

Why do we need the management matrix :

It is a tool which helps us to effectively do work by assigning priorities to the tasks at hand and will optimise our productivity, maybe even increase productivity. In other words, it is a very simple time management tool.

What is the management matrix :

The figure 1 gives a schematic of the management matrix. The matrix is divided into four quadrants and each of them have been defined as follows:

Quadrant 1 - Tasks which are very urgent and very important

Quadrant 2 - Tasks which important but not urgent

Quadrant 3 - Tasks which are urgent but not important

Quadrant 4 - Tasks which are neither important nor urgent

How will this help :

Everyone knows that there are tasks which are very urgent and very important, but, we just don't do it because we end up doing tasks which are either quadrant 2, quadrant 3 or quadrant 4. Subconsciouly we are drawn to these quadrants for some or the other reason and this matrix reminds us to not do that. I will start using this from tomorrow and will quantify how my productivity will increase. It is intersting to note that emphasis is actually laid on quadrant 2 for long term development, as this quadrant deals with tasks which are very important but not very urgent. It is very difficult to recognise and categorize tasks into this quadrant, but, it is very important that one does it.

I personally think that quadrant 4 is of some utility as well, as I think it will help us refocus on our tasks at hand. If you end up wasting time on trivial matters, it helps you to realise that you cannot affort to do it anymore and will have to shift to another quadrant. To begin with it is difficult to talk about tasks in terms of quadrants, but, over time I am sure I will get used to it.

As I have understood the concept of management matrix and feel excited to start using it from tomorrow, a few questions come in to my mind :

1. Do we always have to work in such a structure and ordered manner?
2. Is there a definite way of shifting from quadrant to quadrant?
3. Provided I am in quadrant 1, why and how will I move to quadrant 4 or vice-versa?
4. How does one decide on the quadrants to begin with?
5. If I start a new project, what percentage will I allocate to each quadrant?
6. Typical trend of how a person operates in each quadrant a day over time?
7. Can I quantify productivity with this matrix?
8. Will my time management skills really improve?

These are just some of the questions in my mind at this point in time. As I begin to use it and probably abuse it, I will find out answers through them. It is a simple tool, hence, it might be useful, let me give a go at it.

References
[1] http://sidsavara.com/personal-development/nerdy-productivity-coveys-time-management-matrix-illustrated-with-xkcd-comics
[2]http://timegt.com/2010/07/14/what-is-the-eisenhower-matrix/

To be intuitive or not to be?

There have been instances where intuition works and sometimes fails. There are instances in which you get your work done by being counter-intuitive and some times not. The question is to be intuitive or not to be or to be counter-intuitive or not to be.

Being counter-intuitive makes you rational to an extent. But, if you are intuitive you are creative, can you be creative and at the same time be counter-intuitive and also emotional?

Being rational doesn't neccessarily mean being counter-intuitive?

To sum it all up, what do you want to be?.

Can you categorize your thinking this way, when you think about somehthing, how would you think about a topic?. As far as I can think, think intuitively, think counter-intuitively (if possible) and then take a decision which excites you and gets the work done. Again, you can weigh both the results and take a decision which is going to give you long term benefits (again, am I being intuitive here or counter-intuitive?). Does this make me rational? I think it makes me an engineer actually. Personally, I don't think life manifests itself in a structured and ordered manner, it is only displaying our limitation or the way we think about it.

For example. it's 215am now, I am supposed to head to office tomorrow at 9am. Hence, it's better to sleep, that's what I am thinking, the other way to think is, I have loved writing this piece of random thoughts in my mind and would love to continue, but, doesn't seem to be a practical decision, even though I may be happy, for a short period of time. Wise decision would be to sleep. I guess your mode of thinking depends highly on the situation you're in. To be intuitive or not to be is highly intuitive, or is it counter-intuitive !

Some of the best quotes I've ever liked

कर्मण्ये वाधिकारस्ते म फलेषु कदाचना
कर्मफलेह्तुर भुरमा ते संगोस्त्वकर्मानी॥

- You have a right to perform your duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.
This is one of the best things I have ever heard in my life. It is highly contradicting, that's what makes you think, re-think and appreciate the beauty and the depth in the statement. One of the verses in the Bhagavadh Gitah.

• " Lead me or follow me or get out of my way ". - General George S Patton.

• " Chaos breeds life when order breeds habit ". - Henry Adams.

• " I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not ". - Kurt Cobain.

• "The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking." - Albert Einstein.

• "Knowledge is Power". - Sir Francis Bacon

Here I go again

I have always been interested in research. Now that I have experience in research at different levels, I do understand what it is, to an extent. The thoughts that I am penning down are my perceptions about research at this point in time and are bound to change as I continuously rethink about researching. I am of the opinion that research, especially in engineering has to result in some or other form of product, which could be beneficial to the society (or could be just beneficial to myself, as some may say, anything beneficial to myself is also beneficial to my society, assuming things, i.e.). A lot of people completely disagree with me happily. I can understand why they think that way - it is because they are aligned to standard mode of thinking and do not want to change their perception. Please note that I am talking about engineering research ( could be a masters by research, PhD or something somewhere else ). If you really look at engineering research which could end up giving you a PhD, then, it should also result in, or at least aid in the development of a useful product. I think research will help one to equip themselves with various skills, develop a systematic approach to solving problems, give an ego boost, so on and so forth, but, these have been the traditional products or by-products of research. In the current era, we have to change the direction a bit, so as to redefine what research is all about. Writing numerous papers, getting them published, increasing your publications seem to be the common norm of the researcher and some people are happy to do this for their entire life. I have met some great people in my life who have given me different perspectives about research. My masters thesis supervisor was of the opinion that research should imbibe in you a very systematic approach to solving a problem - but, I think if you are too systematic, you cannot be too creative - being chaotic sometimes works wonders (of course I did not argue about this with him, I would put it across to him though, very mildly). There is difference in the levels of research, e.g. research conducted as part of bachelor's thesis may not be as good as a master's thesis (again, perception) and a master's thesis may not be as great as a PhD thesis. But, sometimes the opposite is true. The next question that arises in my mind is - What the fuck is a great PhD thesis?.

As you speak to people who are doing PhD, you get to know different perspectives of what a PhD is. Some of the most common reasons I've come across - just for the heck of it - did not get a job after masters - love solving problems - someone is paying for it, so on and so forth. I believe that one has to define his/her purpose of doing research. I haven't come across anyone who wants to do a PhD to actually create a useful product out of it ( I am sure there are lots of people with that idea in their mind ), but, the academia doesn't try to infuse this idea little bit. Why don't they do it, I am not sure, is it because they want people to think on their own and come to such conclusions? Maybe, maybe not. Looking all the things I've learnt from people who are pursuing research, it's one reason which basically gets them through and it is the responsibility of that particular person to determine what exactly 'wakes him/her up in the morning to do research'.

To conclude, I am of the opinion that engineering research should ultimately result in the design or development of an useful product and this mode of thinking has to be infused in people's brain from the very beginning. This has got nothing to do with monetary benefits, but, the idea of actually testing and validating your research in the real world is what should excite people. This is what excites me and will continue to excite me. Again, there is huge difference when you are working in an industry and developing products - there may not be science coming out of it always.

Solving a problem that has never been solved before forms the framework of a PhD, but, this is a standard framework that has been used for years. I am not sure if this will change, but, if you are an engineering researcher - ...you might not be solving some of the biggest issues or problems in engineering, but, I personally think that getting your feet wet in this arena is good. The question to ponder is "where does engineering end, and the science begins" and recursively. If you are really involved with engineering research, do you really need to publish science.

To sum it all up, the reason why one should pursue engineering research (not in any order of preference) is to actually create a product useful to the society ( why would you want to solve a problem, if it is not helping anything/anybody in this world? ), thrill of solving problems (inherently likes solving problems), acquire multi-disciplinary skills, learn a systematic approach to solving complex problems and finally to push the envelope of our understanding of this world. I am not against science, I am against it's isolation from the rest of the world.

Where does the engineering end or begin, where does the science end or begin? Does the science begin where the engineering ends?