Tuesday
Oct262010
My favourite time management system
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9:17 In my last post, I asked commenters to guess which of my own time management systems I prefer myself. The majority guessed correctly that my favourite is the original Autofocus (AF1) which I introduced in January 2008. I’m not claiming that it is perfect, but for me there is nothing to beat it.
In order for AF1 to work well, there are three important things in the rules which need to be taken seriously. I think a lot of the trouble that people have had with AF1 has been due to neglect of these.
- Tasks which need to be done now, should be done now regardless of where they are in the system (or whether they are in it at all). This applies to both urgent tasks and tasks that need to be done at a specific time of day. However it’s important to realise that the system will cope with most fairly urgent tasks without needing to invoke this rule, just so long as one trusts the system.
- One must not be afraid to dismiss tasks. The rules are quite clear about when tasks should be dismissed and what the consequences of dismissal are. Dismissal and the threat of dismissal are at the heart of the “autofocus” aspect of the system. If you resist dismissing tasks, then the whole system will be thrown out of kilter.
- As a general rule, one should be aiming to cycle through your entire list at least once a day. To do this, you should pay attention to the “little and often” principle. There are two aspects of this. The first is the number of tasks you work on when you visit a page, and the second is the length of time you work on a task before moving on to another. By adjusting these two, you can avoid the twin evils of getting bogged down in the early pages of the list or chasing the end of the list.
I intend to write more about AF1 and the advantages of using it over the next few weeks. Your own experiences as always are welcome in the Comments or on the Discussion Forum.
Reader Comments (40)
With this article I'm seriously thinking in giving AF1 a try.
My job and life is plenty of long-term and urgent tasks, but maybe whit all I've learned by now with AF4 I could have a succesful way with AF1.
Just to be more confident with this: Which are the faults of AF4?
Hi Ignacio,
If you are already OK, and even, as you say, almost perfect with AF4, then I would suggest not to switch to AF1. The disadvantages with AF4, in my opinion, is that it can get bogged down by lots of backlog (especially recurring/routine) tasks, but if you have found a way around that, then AF4 becomes an almost perfect blend of handling of urgent and long term tasks.
God bless.
----
Hi Mark,
I would have to confess that it is your first item that I am guilty of. So my question is, if my next task is in another page than I where I should be, should I jump to that page and do AF from there, or do I just do the task and return to where I had been?
TIA.
God bless.
4) When you come to the line, do not go into the Active List. Instead return to the beginning of the Backlog and continue to move through it in it doing any tasks which feel ready to be done. Keep circulating in this way, until you have done a complete pass through the Backlog without any tasks being done.
This is the reason huge backlogs cause AF4 trouble. With a hundred plus items, you're nearly always going to find something to do in that list, and never get to the open list. In my case, AF4 works well for me though I no longer follow this rule as written. Nowadays I follow this rule instead:
4) When you come to the line, you may either go to the Active List or return to the beginning of the Backlog at your option.
This is even less effective at clearing the backlog, but more effective at working on current stuff. I actively keep my backlog small.
<< So my question is, if my next task is in another page than I where I should be, should I jump to that page and do AF from there, or do I just do the task and return to where I had been? >>
Do the task and return to where you were in the list.
My main reason for preferring AF1 to AF4 is that I find I get a better flow with AF1. I find it is actually quite restful!
Thanks Mark!
I think the reason I kept having problems with urgent items in AF1 is because I (unconsciously perhaps) keep on thinking that "jumping to an urgent item" is more of an exception to the rules rather than part of the rules of AF1, since it is not part of the instructions but it is in the "Dos and Don’ts", and as much as possible I try to stick to rules.
Yes, I know technically it IS part of the instructions, but still...
Mark, I know this is an odd request, but can you please just move/copy that particular rule from the "Dos and Don’ts" to the "Quick Start" and "Full Instructions"? It's not that important, but still...
God bless.
(Remember DIT and it's today-page in the task diary!)
How do you recommend dealing with this?
Why did I get bogged down? It goes straight to the three things Mark is emphasizing here.
(1) If something needs to be done now, do it now. Practically, for me, this basically means, "keep pressing and urgent things straight in your head, just in case you need to override the normal flow of the AF rules." If I've been sick for a day or two, or caught up in an all-day meeting, I simply don't remember what's urgent. I trusted the AF list to tell me that. But when I got back into AF after a short break like that, I felt overwhelmed by all the things that cried out for attention because they were urgent. The stress of that led me to pick off easy things like "check email" or "read AF forum" LOL. Of course that only increased the stress. My solution was to switch to the last page, write down anything that I knew was pressing, and take a quick scan through the list to make sure I wasn't forgetting anything important, write it down at the end also, and then start from that last page.
Basically this was restarting AF, and it felt good every time I did that, at least for a short time. But since rewriting tasks at the end before actually working on them really fouls up the dismissal process, the long-term effect wasn't good.
Alternately, I could simply restart AF after any break of a day or more. But then I lose all the important recurring items and other miscellaneous tasks that do need to be done at some point. So that didn't work for me.
(2) I wasn't afraid of dismissal, but my moving things forward as a means of dealing with urgency played havoc with the dismissal rules in the long run.
(3) I fell into the "chasing the end of the list" group, because I had such a volume of tasks. I did try the techniques Mark mentioned -- forcing myself to move quickly, by limiting myself to as few tasks on each page as possible, for example. But this process tended to favor the small easy items, rather than the significant and more complicated work that is really where I want to spend my time.
For these reasons, I have found DWM much more effective. It deals with all three of these problems, especially when I broke out the maintenance and "someday/maybe"-type tasks to a separate DWM list and blocked out limited time on my calendar just for those. This allows my main DWM list to focus on the more important projects. This seems to work well, in the spirit of separate lists for work and personal -- "main work" and "maintenance/misc" are two different mental attitudes for me, almost like two different jobs, and the separation is helping quite a bit. If a new task appears and I don't know where to put it, I can put it on both lists (since I manage the lists with Outlook categories). Anyway, this approach helps isolate the "urgent things that must be done now" while still following all the rules of the system.
Secondly, the DWM dismissal is more effective for me, since it forces dismissal after a certain period of time, and tends to keep my total number of tasks pretty constant. I get a much better sense of my total workload and what I can really handle. Again, separating out the main work from the maintenance/miscellany helps a lot. If a main work item falls off the DWM waterfall, this is a red flag to me that there is something seriously wrong -- either my workload is too big, or I'm spending too much time on the AF forum, or something like that, and I can take corrective action. But if a miscellaneous someday/maybe falls off the waterfall, I just say "goodbye" and move on.
Third, cycling the list is helpful, but not nearly so pressing, since the dismissal happens automatically whether you cycle the list or not, and DWM eventually presents you with everything on your list, even if you don't cycle through it.
One downside to DWM is that it takes a few weeks for it to really kick into gear. And this is a strong reason, I suspect, that AF1 works better for Mark. AF1 requires no priming -- you just take a sheet of paper or a notebook and list whatever is on your mind and you are off and running. Mark has done a lot of stopping and restarting, because of his experimenting with new systems. The easy fallback is AF1.
Mark, I would be interested to see whether you continue to find AF1 to be your system of choice after using it, and it alone, for several months, or whether you start to gravitate toward DWM. What is the maximum lifecycle for a single continuous AF1 list? When you reach the end of the notebook, I remember you recommended just starting fresh with a new book, and put an optional task "copy forward items from old AF book if wanted" in your new book. That's essentially doing a restart, which DWM never requires because it forces you to cycle through everything in a month.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, sorry also if it's incomprehensible. :-)
Does AF1 work best with periodic restarting? Is that another reason, besides the super-easy startup and intuitive flow, that Mark has found AF1 works best in his situation?
I can definitely see it help people that need more structure and something that's integrated with it's environment. There is security in that. My brain prefers opportunities to security so that's why I gravitate towards the former.
@Seraphim
Great summarization!
Limiting, in all it's meanings, really is a powerful skill for being Effective!!!
Recording the date each time a fresh line is created also adds to the sense of urgency that the longer the tasks above the line remain as they are, the greater the danger of something in there blowing up in my face.
(Yes, I need that kind of motivation to get me going on some of the stuff on my list.)
Another recent development has been that I am batching a lot of my tasks or dealing with them as projects. I credit nuntym for that and for now its been working fine. The danger I face is that if a task is very deeply nested in a project, I may lose the standing out effect it may have as a standalone item but I'll cross that bridge later.
<< But for me an important rule has been to not dismiss any task, even if it just means working a couple of minutes on it. >>
If you've only been working on AF1 for a couple of days, then I am surprised that you've already got to the stage where you are likely to have to dismiss a task. Dismissal is a very important part of AF1, but please read the instructions again and check that you are in fact doing it right.
<< I often have a few tasks that take several days to complete. I should be working on them for a few hours each day, but in AF1 I work on each one for a short period (15-30 minutes), move it to the end and switch to another task, but I won't encounter those tasks again for several days as I'm working through everything else. >>
If it's taking you several days to get back to the task, then you're moving too slowly through the list.
However if you have major tasks on which you should be working for several hours, then the best way to deal with them is to give them their own scheduled time-slots, rather than put them on your AF list.
<< Does AF1 work best with periodic restarting? Is that another reason, besides the super-easy startup and intuitive flow, that Mark has found AF1 works best in his situation? >>
When I first introduced AF1 I worked with it continuously for several months and never felt the need to restart. But restarting did seem to help some people who were getting bogged down in enormous lists. My feeling at the time was that these people were too reluctant to dismiss. This is a fatal flaw - dismissing should be seen as part of the normal process, not some sort of failure. I have been known to dismiss 30 tasks out of 32 on a page!
I note that you say that you prefer DWM because it has automatic dismissal. This immediately suggests to me that you were too reluctant to dismiss under that AF1 rules.
Please note that I am answering your question, not trying to convert you to AF1!
<< can you please just move/copy that particular rule from the "Dos and Don’ts" to the "Quick Start" and "Full Instructions"? >>
The trouble with amending the original AF instructions is that it would involve amending all those foreign language versions as well.
But you have my permission to amend your own downloaded copy for your own use!
<< I wasn't afraid of dismissal, but my moving things forward as a means of dealing with urgency played havoc with the dismissal rules in the long run. >>
I often move tasks to the end of the list when I need to do them quickly. That doesn't mess up the dismissal process as long as I do the task when I get to it. So I will only move a task forward when I am certain I am actually going to do it.
One of the drawbacks of the written version of DWM is that the list is spread over many pages of a diary and that you need two entry points - one for new tasks and one for re-entries.
You can use an ordinary notebook and have only one entry point as follows:
1. Have one continuous list of tasks as in Autofocus
2. When you enter a new task, put a mark next to it to show it is a new task (I use a black dot).
3. When you re-enter a task, leave out the black dot.
4. At the beginning of a new day, leave a blank line and enter the day's date on the next line.
5. Then cross out any days earlier than one month previous, and dismiss any tasks which do not have black dots against them on pages earlier than one week previous.
The difference is that instead of your current list stretching forward from today's date, it stretches backwards from it - but the effect is exactly the same.
[Yegor Gilyov has a Russian translation of these rules on his website at http://www.snailrider.ru/archives/146 ]
Hi JD,
<<Another recent development has been that I am batching a lot of my tasks or dealing with them as projects. I credit nuntym for that and for now its been working fine.>>
You're welcome! I'm very glad it has been working so well for you.
God bless.
-----
Hi Mark,
<<The trouble with amending the original AF instructions is that it would involve amending all those foreign language versions as well.
<<But you have my permission to amend your own downloaded copy for your own use! >>
LOL thanks Mark! And I understand, thanks for even just considering it.
<<Since Seraphim has mentioned his preference for DWM, I might take the opportunity to mention a suggested improvement to the DWM instructions which I don't think I've written about before.>>
MARK, THAT'S BRILLIANT! I thought of something similar to this when I read wowi's post,
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1255473
in which I adopted his way of using symbols to denote the number of days have past since closing a list, but I could never think of a way of replicating the "re-entering tasks" effect of DWM in a straight list. But now that you've shown me the way to do that, here is my own take on the straight-list DWM, which I will test-drive right away:
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af63/nuntym/test/Untitled2.jpg
(please pardon my horrible writing ^___^)
The use of different symbols to denote when to dismiss the re-entered tasks and when to dismiss all the remaining tasks, in contrast to relying on dates, has the advantage of making the DWM list still viable even after leaving it alone for a few days, for example when the DWM is used for work and you would want to not use it during weekends, or when you just want to let your DWM list to fallow for a bit.
I theorize that to start it one has to write "Day 1," "Day 2," "Day 3," etc. on the margins right beside each separating line, but by the time you reach "Day 30" you will not need to mark each new day anymore, as adding additional symbols to the vital three points (Day 1, Day 7, Day 30) everyday for the rest of its use is guided by the symbols used the day before.
I really really REALLY love your latest DWM, Mark (at least the concept; I haven't even started yet!), for I have come across this article,
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/10/18/the-art-of-the-finish-how-to-go-from-busy-to-accomplished/
which suggests that focusing on finishing your hard tasks (even to the point of obsession!), not just being "busy" (which I most of the time feel in all versions of AF), is the way to be successful and satisfied with life. This version of DWM emphasizes the re-entered tasks even more than the previous DWM because of its highlighting of said tasks with a different symbol, and thus the spirit of "completion obsession" (LOL! I love that term) will be easier to achieve with the "little and often" approach than with any other version of AF or DWM.
Anyways, let's see for the next few days Mark.
Thank you and God bless!
I like this! It's what my current system for unscheduled tasks is moving towards. It can also handle daily lists, although that would dilute the other tasks.
You don't need to write Day 30/7/1 if you don't mind doing a bit of mental math regularly (and aren't stuck on exactly 30 days).
Write the day of the week and the date when each day starts. On January 13, Day-30 is December 15. On Tuesday, Day-7 is last Tuesday. You have to fudge it a bit since the months all have a different number of days, but it works. Or you can use 4-weeks instead of 30 days, so on Monday, all the key days are also Tuesday. (I don't like that. Maybe the reason I didn't do it is related to weekly events.)
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2010/10/23/which-of-my-own-systems-do-i-like-the-best.html#item10292078
First, AF1 really helped me with rules that were simple enough and that I could trust to be second nature. And, as the days went by and I followed the rules, I undestood why they were laid out that way! At the same time, the discussions on the forum helped me a great deal, even when I was not actively participating.
I confess I never really got the gist of DIT, although loving its concepts and having read the book a couple of times. At least, I think, because I could not let go of other systems and just follow plain DIT for long enough.
AF1 was a very different beast: these are the simple rules, let me drop every other system and follow it. There. Days and days pass. Now, this, let me see how this works (and then there were the forums).
I confess that after some months AF1 was a bit impractical to me. This was mainly because of the erratic nature of my job: I sometimes spend weeks coming to university and working 9-to-5, and sometimes I work from home days at end; and some weeks I just mix and match commuting days and work-from-home days. Keeping 2 notebooks will never work for me (as I love being able to go back and forth between commuting and not as the situation poses itself), and the stalactite-stalagmite method was too caotic to work for a long time.
I then jumped into AF2 and AF3, but have little recollection of them. I just went back and skimmed the instructions, and I feel there is an added layer of complexity on them that do not add any benefit to me. But I did follow them when they were released, as they dealt better with my "problem" above. And they were also really, really educational.
When AF4 came, I thought that was perfection and I would never ever consider trying anything else. It really suited me. Then came DWM, and I was pretty skeptical, but there I tried it. Now, DWM *is* perfect (until the next perfect thing comes, but I will not hold my breath)!
You know, on a work trip that lasted a month I reverted from DWM to AF4 during the trip only. It did not flow as well compared to DWM, but I think it suited the trip.
Now, DWM is indeed a kind of DIT. But I could have never jumped straight from DIT to DWM, because I learned so much using all the AFs --- how to trust the system, how to trust the dismissal, how to not worry about having project list if I do not need them.
And thanks for following up with that alternate way to do DWM*! I was so excited to try it that I just sketeched a page to get the hang of it (and thanks to Nuntym, for posting your scheme as well). I use a normal notebook that I date week by week. I don't even care much about the "many pages to be turned". But I have lots of nearly-empty pages and lots of overflowing pages, and I find I shame to have empty pages! I just bought some more nice notebooks and I am glad I will use DWM on them and will not waste any bit of my nice sheets of paper. :)
* Although, again, I just think it works for someone who is already doing DWM with single-day-pages as the original instructions, so it is very clear why we dismiss "undotted" and "dotted" tasks in different time frames.
<<< for I have come across this article,
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/10/18/the-art-of-the-finish-how-to-go-from-busy-to-accomplished/ >>>
I almost wept when I read that article, not sure exactly why. (Maybe it's the onions I had for lunch.)
It gets exactly to the heart of my struggles with AF and even DWM, and to my recent rejiggering of my DWM-based system with a couple of DWM-driven "hotlists" for important work and personal projects.
For the last several weeks I have kept repeating to myself, "Results that matter!! Results that matter!!" And trying to make sure that I deliver those results, and not get distracted too much by the miscellany that also needs to be handled.
The article reflects clearly what really happens in my own life -- I have periods of intense focused activity where everything gets shut out for a day or more, after which I can look back and see I've created something significant (in my own little world, at least). And then I putter around for a bit, rest, recuperate, and think about the next big thing, meanwhile catching up on all the maintenance and administrivia that needs attention.
The problem with me has been, the older I get, the more I get distracted by odds and ends and attracted by constantly refining the process; and the harder it is to jump into high gear and deliver something that matters.
Until the very last minute.
But this doesn't work so well any more. I can't do the all-nighters any more; it knocks me down for a week afterward. I can't sit at my computer for 10-14 hours at a stretch; my eyes just get too blurry and my prescription goes up another diopter. Also, some of the big projects don't have deadlines, so there isn't any Last Minute -- they just keep getting postponed till they don't matter any more.
This isn't a recipe for success.
That article, short as it is, gave me inspiration. I'll see if I can make it work for me. Thanks again for the pointer!
Seraphim,
<<I almost wept when I read that article, not sure exactly why. >>
I really hope it will help you, considering I have read many times in this forum how you have struggled with the phenomenally monstrous number of tasks that come your way every day. I hope all blessings come in your way during your struggles.
However, I think the new way of DWM that Mark explained, which I am trying right now, seems to be a more efficient way of doing the same thing. I'll tell you in a few weeks if I found this to be true, but you are welcome to try.
-----
Cricket and Natalia,
You're welcome!
-----
Anyways, as the first day of my trial of this new straight-list DWM ends, I recollect my thoughts on my admittedly short experience on its use, and I really cannot believe it: this could be the best version of Autofocus yet! Although it may be too early to notice yet, I perceived none of the limitations of the other versions of AFs and DWM that I have tried, and yet it truly delivered what had been the promise of all the versions of Autofocus: focusing on doing what is really important.
This is due to two things that I noticed. First is the special mark that denotes a re-entered task. Now let me be clear here: re-entered tasks are UNFINISHED tasks, not recurring tasks. If the task is a recurring task but I finished it now to be done again later, I enter it as a new task. But if the task was only partially done by the time I stop, I enter it as a re-entered task. Now, because the re-entered tasks are highlighted by the special mark, I keep on noticing those tasks; they always "stand out." And these tasks are NOT urgent/emergency tasks, but are, by definition, HARD tasks, because they cannot be finished in one go but have to be "re-entered." In other words, <<the straight-list DWM method follows the "Resistance Principle" as described by Mark: hard tasks "stand out" and thus are treated truly "little and often”.>> I really cannot believe how fast I finished the hard tasks today that I usually do for far longer because of distractions, and because of that, I did more of those hard tasks that I know were really important.
The second thing that I noticed is its flexibility. The dismissal rules of DWM are time-based, not "process-based" like in AF1 and AF4. Because of the process-based dismissal rules of AF1 and AF4, you have to be rigid in how you process your tasks in those AF versions. But in DWM, the dismissal rules are NOT based on how you process your tasks but rather in the number of days those tasks have been in the list. Because of the multipage character of the original DWM, that characteristic is, unfortunately, hard to exploit in the said system. But in straight-list DWM, the system is one long uninterrupted list, and therefore <<it is easy to process the tasks any way you want to without interrupting the dismissal process, and, I found, without losing the "closed lists" effect..>> During this day, I processed the tasks AF1 style, AF2 style, a sort-of AF4 style, Ping Pong style, a style of focusing solely on the re-entered tasks, and even plain DWM style :D My choice of approach depended on what I feel is the best approach to handling those tasks, and (probably the most important thing) I never got bored or tired of processing the list ^___^
Now, if straight-list DWM handles backlogs as excellently as the original DWM, then I would have to say this is the most awesome TM system that I have ever had the privilege of trying.
God bless us all.
Cricket,
<<You don't need to write Day 30/7/1 if you don't mind doing a bit of mental math regularly (and aren't stuck on exactly 30 days).>>
Actually, once I hit the "Day 30" mark I will not need to date my DWM anymore ^___^
God bless.
Your enthusiasm for "straight-list DWM" is inspiring.
There are a couple of differences between the way that you are doing it and the way that I envisaged:
1) You are making a special mark for re-entered tasks, whereas I envisaged a special mark for new tasks.
2) You are marking only unfinished tasks as "re-entered", whereas I envisaged "re-entered" as including recurring tasks.
There's a difference here in the way the marks are being used. I try to make the marks as inconspicuous as possible because they are only used to distinguish the date the task goes "over the waterfall". You are using the marks additionally to make unfinished projects stand out.
Personally I think I would prefer the way I envisaged, but I'll be interested to see how it works out for you.
On the subject of dating the days, all that is necessary is to number each day with the recurring series A-G (easy to remember because it's the nomenclature for musical notes) and 1-30, e.g. B22. At the beginning of each day you take dismissal action on the previous day which has the same letter and the previous day which has the same number. Since you will only number days when you are actually working on the list, this automatically allows for days when you are not working without needing any complicated adjustments.
You're right, the revised DWM looks a lot like AF with different expiry rules. I like it. (Now I understand why Mark called DWM a variation on AF.)
Nice distinction between long tasks that will eventually end with little and often, and tasks that can be done any time but will never end.
This is getting complex.
- Will end if I do little and often (or do a ton and burn out).
- Will never end but should work at little and often anyways (music practice).
- Will end for now, but show up again (water plants, check next month for gift buying, book annual doctor visit).
- One time (get quotes for new roof).
- Re-entred after 30 days. On short notice.
I had been merging never-ending with large-but-will-end, but separating them might be a good exercise.
I like making the first category stand out. Backlogs annoy me but I keep putting them off.
Mark,
<< Only number the days when you are actually working the list. >>
You read my mind. I was wondering what to do after a week away from the list. Process an entire week's worth at once (overload!) or something else. In that case, Nuntym's right, we don't need to add today's date.
I consider this a brainstorm stage. It's supposed to be complex as we explore options. Then each of us will pick the options that work best for us and simplify it.
<< This is getting complex. >>
The rationale behind my method is that you can put anything you like on the list and you have 30 days to activate it. Once it's been activated you have to keep it going by taking action on it at least once every 7 days. So the system gives you time to consider whether to allow something into your life, and gets rid of it fairly quickly if it doesn't work out.
numtym's method takes a rather different perspective, which is to concentrate on unfinished work by encouraging you to work on it at least once every 7 days.
In summary, I'm concentrating on keeping the list pruned, while numtym is concentrating more on getting larger jobs finished. The methods of course overlap each other to some extent.
All we need to do now is to find a way of achieving both without complicating things too much.
Limited number of active projects and specific goals for each one. That's what I do with the kids, why should I have work through zillions of vague projects?
Guys, I think we should move our discussion concerning Mark's new DWM process so that we do not derail this blog post any longer. I made a discussion thread here:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1285362
God bless.
To create great things, isn't sustained concentration on one problem/task necessary? I doubt Michelangelo, Einstein, etc. were switching rapidly between 50 tasks while producing their great works.
In fact, Cal Newport has similar articles about this: http://calnewport.com/blog/2007/10/10/the-einstein-principle-accomplish-more-by-doing-less/
For me, as I've been finishing my PhD dissertation, I've used the method suggested by Mark in this comment thread: removing these large tasks that require chunks of focused time from the AF list and devoting scheduled time to it.
Mark, I'm curious if you find yourself doing this often, or if it's just a suggestion to your readers, who always seem to be griping about one thing or another?
You might find the recent threads on the Forum interesting as they address this concern.
Or, you could try Paul Erdos' lifestyle. Paul only ever thought about mathematics, and relied entirely on the grace of his colleagues for lodging, etc.
http://www.proofhub.com/
http://www.pm-software-online.com/
There are a few issues which have bothered me about the system though:
1. Tasks which I know won't be done for a while, such as changing the oil ain my lawn mower which will happen some time next spring.
2. Task which are critically important but won't happen for a long time. An example is the renewal of my professional license which is not due until 2014 but will have serious consequences if forgotten.
I'm afraid the system will become cluttered with tasks like that on one hand, but on the other hand they should not be forgotten either.
Any thoughts?
Are you sure you mean AF4? There's no left column in AF4.
On your questions 1 and 2, none of the AF/SF systems are designed to deal with tasks which will occur more than a few days in the future. What you are recommended to do with this type of task is to put it into some form of reminder system. The method I use myself is Outlook Tasks. The reminder is not to do the task, but to put it on the list to be done.
I'll share with you what works for me. Hopefully you'll find it useful as well. And really, I pretty much handle the situations you mentioned in 1 and 2 in the same spirit as Mark's response. For me, Review results in one of three possible consequences: 1) Kill it (cross it off and don't look back) 2) Reincarnate it (re-enter it onto the list, re-written, or broken down into subtasks to account for the re-planning) or 3) Suspend it - which answers both your questions.
For items like the oil change in question 1, I put those items on my DWM2 list (for that's the system I use) as I would do with any other task that came my way. When it got ignored to the point of reviewing the "Change Mower Oil" task, I would cross it off my DWM2 list, and put it on a Maybe Someday list (of GTD fame). The Maybe Someday list is a list seperate from my active DWM2 list full of things that "Maybe Someday" I'll do. I have on my DWM2 list, a recurring task to review every item on my Maybe Someday list. That way I don't completely forget about my Maybe Someday tasks, and I have the opportunity to get back to them later, yet they don't bog down my active DTM2 list either. In this way, the Oil Change Task will sit in "Suspended Animation" until I review the Maybe Someday list at a later date and decide that it's time to put it back on my DWM2 list.
For items like in question 2 like renewing your license, that DO have a specified point in the future by which it needs to be handled, I follow the same steps as above. First I enter it into my DWM2, it stays there until I review it, and then I would put it on my calendar for the day on which I would like to START WORK on that task. Say on June 1st, 2013 I would write "Professional License Renewed by April 4th 2014." On June 1st 2013, I would enter that task back onto my DWM2 list, and begin working it as normal. In this way the License Renewal Task would sit in Suspended Animation until a specified calendar date came - at which point I would re-animate the Task.
This seems to add complexity to Mark's otherwise elegant systems, I know. But that's the full expanse of my own system with the exception of my contacts. So my entire system consists of Calendar, Maybe Someday List, Contacts Pages (or Address Book if you will), and DWM2 List at the core.
Hope that helps!