Transcript

Imogen: I suggested the app because our problem was not that nobody did anything. It was that we noticed different things. I would clean the kitchen and think I had contributed a lot, while you would remember buying toilet paper and taking the bins out. Marcus: Exactly. We were both counting the jobs we personally disliked. The app made the invisible jobs more visible, which was useful, but I think we made a mistake by giving every task points. Imogen: At first the points felt fair. Cleaning the bathroom got more than watering the plants. Then we spent ridiculous amounts of time arguing whether changing a light bulb was worth one point or two. Marcus: And a quick job done at the right moment can matter more than a difficult job done later. Emptying the bin before guests arrive is not objectively hard, but timing makes it valuable. Imogen: So we removed points and kept only the list. That was better. People could still see what needed doing without turning the flat into a competition. Marcus: I also liked assigning some jobs permanently. You always remember the plants, and I never mind doing the recycling. Rotating every single task in the name of fairness created more administration than fairness. Imogen: Although permanent jobs need reviewing. I was happy with the plants in winter, then summer came and suddenly they needed attention every day. Marcus: True. We now check the list at the start of each month. Not a formal meeting - just ten minutes while everyone is in the kitchen. Imogen: Notifications were another issue. The app sent a reminder whenever a task was due. With four people in the flat, our phones were constantly buzzing about jobs somebody else had already planned to do. Marcus: We turned off automatic reminders and use them only for tasks that really depend on a date, like putting out a particular recycling box. Imogen: The shared shopping list worked better than the chores list, strangely. Maybe because shopping has a clear end point: either the milk is in the fridge or it is not. Marcus: Whereas 'clean the living room' can mean different things to different people. I might vacuum and think it is finished; you might notice the table is still covered in papers. Imogen: That taught us to make certain tasks more specific. Instead of 'clean kitchen', the list might say 'wipe surfaces and floor'. But I do not want every task written like a legal contract. Marcus: Nor me. If people need twenty instructions before they can help, the problem is not the app. Imogen: One feature we stopped using was the weekly ranking. It was meant to be fun, but people started delaying tiny tasks until Sunday so they could move up the list. Marcus: That was the clearest example of the system changing behaviour in the wrong direction. Marcus: Guests exposed another weakness. We would tidy quickly before somebody visited, and the app then showed a burst of completed tasks that made the week look unusually productive. Imogen: Yes, the record was accurate but the interpretation was wrong. It told us what happened, not why it happened. That helped me stop treating the history page as a scorecard. Imogen: We also tried a rule saying whoever noticed a job should add it to the app rather than doing it immediately. That was meant to make work visible, but it was silly when the job took thirty seconds. Marcus: Yes. Recording a task can become more effort than completing it. We kept the rule for things that need planning, not for wiping a spill or putting a cup away. Imogen: The app is still on my phone, so I would not call it a failure. It gives us one shared place to see jobs and shopping. Marcus: I agree. But the useful part is visibility, not measurement. Once we tried to turn every contribution into a number, we created new arguments instead of solving old ones. Imogen: And it only works because we still talk. If somebody is ill or working late, no app can decide what is fair that week. Marcus: Yes. The list supports the conversation; it cannot replace it.