I had to re-write this as I lost the original in the forum upgrade disaster.
The original JD implementation had no way of handling multiple projects. Fairly recently I came up with the
PRO.AC.ID method, which assigns a 3-digit number as a project ID.
After using it for a while, I don’t think I like it. I don’t find the project IDs memorable and, worse, I find that the extra numbers make it harder for me to remember my category IDs.
It is worth noting that I think projects should be used sparingly. Before the idea existed, my entire life was a single ‘project’. I ran a 3-year Australia-wide data centre deployment as a single project.
You should aim to exhaust the basic
AC.ID notation before you reach for multiple projects.
I had explored the idea of using letters rather than numbers before I documented the existing system. The idea was 3-letter abbreviations for project names. ‘Home’ becomes
HME, the data centre project at work becomes
DCP, and so on. I didn’t like this because it’s not memorable, it’s easy to get confused (did you choose
HME?), and there’s no easy way to group projects.
I suggest a new project ID format: a letter, followed by two numbers.
The letter serves as a grouping, and a mnemonic reminder:
P for personal,
W for work, whatever you like.
The numbers follow sequentially. Or not, if you prefer. It might be more memorable not to start at
So now we have:
P01for my first personal project.
Q01for the first project at work, because the name of the company I work at starts with a ‘Q’.
- Leaving the other letters available for when I change jobs.
- If you’re a freelancer you might use
C01for the first client, and so on.
If you exhaust 100 projects within a letter, or all 26 letters, you’re doing it wrong.
Let me know! As soon as this occurred to me it seemed like the head-slappingly obvious solution. What am I missing?