Balancing Timeboxing and Saturation Mindsets: An Academic’s View on Time Management
Hey Friends,
Lately, I’ve been struggling with two concepts of how to use time. The first is that rushing to finish things is a mistake. That by not giving a problem or a question the time it requires to be fully explored, you lose out on important insights and you can feel anxious and frustrated by this. The second is Parkinson’s Law, which states that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion.” It implies that if more time is allocated to a task, people will often take the full duration to complete it, even if the task could have been finished sooner.
I hold both these beliefs. And yet they feel at odds.
On one hand, I want to use my time effectively and I think timeboxing is an effective way to do that. On the other hand, I want to think deeply about problems to uncover insights that others may not. I want to give the time needed to be fully saturated by an idea before rushing ahead. I think both are useful mindsets. We’ll call this the Timebox mindset vs the Saturation mindset
To reconcile this I’ve drawn from literature I cited in my master’s thesis — the differences between insight problems and well-defined problems.
Insight Problems and Well-Defined Problems
First let’s define the two types of problems we’ll be talking about today.
Insight Problems
Insight problems are a subclass of ill-defined problems that require a sudden shift in perspective or a new way of thinking to solve them. Unlike well-defined problems, where progress can be made step by step, insight problems often involve moments of struggle followed by a sudden “aha!” moment when the solution becomes clear. This is known as non-linear progress because the path to the solution is not straightforward and can involve taking unexpected turns or rethinking one’s approach entirely.
When working on problems of any kind, people often experience feelings of knowing, which is a sense of being close to the solution even if they can’t quite grasp it yet. However, individuals tend to be poor at estimating how close they actually are to solving insight problems. This is because the nature of insight problems makes it difficult to track progress in a clear or consistent way.
Well-Defined Problems
Well-defined problems are challenges or tasks with clear objectives, established methods for solving them, and definite solutions. These types of problems allow for a systematic, step-by-step approach, making it easier to track progress as one moves closer to the solution. Examples of well-defined problems include solving a math equation or following a recipe to prepare a meal. In these cases, the process and the desired outcome are clearly defined, which helps guide the problem-solver toward the correct solution.
When working on well-defined problems, people are generally better at estimating how close they are to completing the task. This is because the progress made can be measured in a more tangible way, such as by checking off steps in a process or monitoring the completion of specific milestones. Since the path to the solution is more predictable and linear, it’s easier for individuals to gauge their progress and anticipate how much effort or time will be needed to reach the desired outcome.
So briefly, when solving insight problems we struggle to tell how close we are to a solution and make unpredictable non-linear progress. Conversely, when solving well-defined problems we make predictable linear progress.
This leads me to this week’s #GuidingQuestions
Guiding Questions
1. Which of my problems or tasks are insight problems and which are well-defined?
2. What mindset should I take to insight problems, and what mindset to well-defined problems
Determine the Type of Problem You’re Facing
It may be tough to tell if what you’re facing an insight problem in advance, so instead we’ll identify which of our tasks are well-defined, and assume the rest are ill-defined and possibly insight problems.
I think most of us have an inherent understanding of which of our problems are well-defined and which aren’t. If you’ve done a task many times before, are confident you know how to do it, and can accurately estimate how long it will take, it’s well-defined. If you can’t, it’s ill-defined and possibly an insight problem. Trust your gut on this.
To Timebox or to Saturate
The timebox mindset is effective when we’re facing a well-defined problem and the saturation mindset is effective for ill-defined and insight problems.
With the well-defined problem, we can formulate an accurate estimate of how long something will take and set reasonable timeboxes, or even push ourselves to finish it in less time. We know the steps, we know how to do them, all there is to do, is to do them.
However, applying this mindset to insight problems is a flagrantly problematic.
With the insight problem, we’re trying to jam an inherently non-linear, unpredictable process into a neat and organized container of time. This leads to frustration when we can’t meet our unrealistic expectations, and reduces our ability to solve the problem due to the anxiety this disconnect causes. It’s fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Instead, we should take the saturation mindset to insight problems. We just have to accept that these problems demand the time to wander with and ponder on. There’s no benefit to rushing them — in fact, it’s detrimental to the solving process itself.
I hope this little mental model helps you as much as it’s helped me. I’d love to hear from you. Where will you apply the timebox mindset vs the saturation mindset?
This was an excerpt from my Email Newsletter #GuidingQuestions
If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing:
✏️ My Other Recent Stuff
How to make ChatGPT your Pair Programming Partner
How to use Notion to Automate Blogging and Newsletter Publishing
🥂 Cheers,
Nathan Laundry
from the IAI Lab at UofT
Check out my other content at my website nathanlaundry.com
Check out the lab I work at here: http://www.josephjaywilliams.com/
