I’d agree that for me batching is not such a great productivity tip. I like to work more on projects and flow from task to task within that project. I sometimes batch tasks, though infrequently - usually when the task is fairly tedious. That’s why I can’t understand your argument that processing a few dozen letters or bills at a time would not be motivating as you would have to work through a lot of letters to tick that task off. I prefer to think of this as each letter being a individual task (or next actions in different projects if thinking along GTD lines) and so I’d be ticking them off one by one as I did them - so I’d be getting the motivational reward a few dozen times by the end of it. David Allen’s idea of cranking widgets really. That’s why I only tend to batch the more boring menial work I do.

Thanks for the comment Rob. Regarding my point about the letters, ticking them off each time you did one would be a sensible approach that not enough batch processors. Personally I like to do one task then do another, unrelated task to keep things fresh.

Great thoughts. The reason batching is popular is simple. Every task tends to have a small amount of start-up time to get into the flow. You need to open your files, get prepared and even mentally get into the right state to perform a task. If you batch, these little hiccups are eliminated so you can handle a bunch of tasks in less time than spreading them out.

You’ve pointed out an obvious point where these benefits start to fail, when you’ve created a batch so large that you start having the opposite effect - boredom. I think the key is figuring out what batch size works for you so you can balance the reduced start-up times with the fatigue from boredom.

Writing is a task that I can be highly productive in for around two or so hours. After that, my energy drops and further batching slows me down. I think every task has this trade-off point, you just need to find it.

Interesting post James, you definitely make some good points. Though, for me I’d much rather go and pay all my bills at once because then I know it’s done. While it may be slightly tedious, knowing that they’re all paid is far more relaxing than knowing that some are paid and some aren’t.

I actually wrote two posts on this a few weeks back, one looking at each side, the pro-batching is at and the pro-incremental.

The key is to do what motivates you. For me, knowing that I had all my bills paid or all my shirts ironed was motivational. For others, looking at that large block of work can be demotivating. It’s all about finding your own personal balance.

I don’t batch so much as plan a rush. Individual items make it onto my task list and during my normal work sessions, they get done in GTD style (when I’m in the context and have the right energy…) to accomplish them.

However, when I see that many little - and often irritating - tasks have piled up on my to-do list, I make a few little rush cards with a handful of items on them (stuff I expect to take about thirty minutes or so). Then, I’ll schedule as many blocks of these as I have rush cards in the same way I schedule any other block of work. During each rush, I shut off all interruptions and just plow through the items on the cards. I do tick off each item as I go for the psychological boost though when I’m done I rip up the card.

I don’t ever batch just to batch, only when I start to get a bunch of tasks that can benefit from it.

Hi James, I agree with your points. However, I have found that batching is still valuable. The trick is to limit your batching not by the amount of work, but by the time spent. This approach is usually called time boxing.

Batching is a great deal like computer networking. You have two primary factors; bandwidth and latency. You optimize your system for the factor that is dominant. Take, for instance, something like writing out bills. Getting them done requires fetching the checkbook, getting a writing instrument, returning chequebook, etc. That is the latency of the transaction. Batching the writing of cheques reduces that latency and thus overall time spent doing it. If you have no latency in the transaction, then batching is just a simplifying act, rather than a time saver.

Thanks for the comments

Dean, I like the networking analogy, I think it sums up the process very well. When I was decorating a room recently I only did one wall a day. This meant I had to take out my paint tools and clean/put them away four times. Never really thought how much that increased the latency of the job. However, I might not even have done the decorating if I’d done all the walls in one go.

Luciano, thanks for pointing out time boxing. I’ll have to check it out some more. Going to have a read of your post on the topic to get me started.

Adam, it certainly is about personal balance. I break my work down into small chunks and spread it all out throughout the week so that I’m never overloaded. It works for me but I can imagine many people struggling to find any momentum and focus from such an approach.

I prefer the middle way. Batch your work but keep interested in the work by not sticking to one boring kind of task for several hours. Otherwise this makes my inspiration, and thus my productivity, worse.

I like to batch small tasks and break down larger ones. For example, I have a paperwork process at work that involves lots of duplication, making copies of invoices, collecting signatures from my boss, filing and mailing.

Now, I can’t very well give the boss signatures one at a time in the middle of my assembly line. Plus, the office gets busy and doesn’t allow me to work in that way. So, I fill out forms and make copies whenever I can get access to the machine and/or book. I give a stack to the boss to be signed. I file the copies and give priority to the ones to be mailed. I know that the filing goes much faster when I’m filing several things at once instead of going to the file drawers one paper at a time.

Some items can be broken up to make them easier. Others have to be batched to make the work more efficient. Like others have said, it’s about finding a middle ground.